PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Sexual Offences Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ABOLITION OF PRESUMPTION OF SEXUAL INCAPACITY

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "(whether natural or unnatural)".
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on successfully steering the Bill through Second Reading and Committee. Indeed, it jumped the queue for private Members' Bills and, after today's debate, it may be considered in the other place. The Bill has not been considered as closely as it should have been; it has slipped through and there is scope for closer scrutiny of it.
The Bill's intention is correct. In law, children under 10 are incapable of committing a crime and, under common law, youngsters under 14 are incapable of sexual intercourse. In reality, that clearly is not true. Girls under 14 give birth and we heard recently about an assault by a 13-year-old on a teacher; more frequently we hear about children sexually assaulting other children. The Bill rightly recognises that such offences can occur and that the common law should apply to them.
The short title of the Bill is significant. It proposes to
Abolish the presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse.
That refers to sexual intercourse, yet clause I refers to
The presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural)".
The words "natural or unnatural" are the subject of my amendment and the hon. Member for Harlow owes the House an explanation. The words must be considered in the context of sexual intercourse—penetration. The assumption must be that heterosexual sex is natural, and gay sex—homosexual sex—is unnatural.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he owes the House an explanation. The clause applies only to sexual intercourse. It is insulting to the millions of homosexuals who practise gay sex to have that practice described as "unnatural". Millions of people around the world will find it insulting because "natural" and "unnatural" are the wrong terms to use; they are much too wide. When I suggested that the hon. Gentleman was using the term "unnatural" to describe homosexual sex, he shook his head. Perhaps he can list what he means by the

terms "natural" and "unnatural", especially "unnatural" if he does not mean it to be applied to gay sex. The House could then consider each of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in turn. As the Bill stands, the term "unnatural" has too wide a scope.
I hesitate to say that it is a habit of the Conservatives, but it is part of their political approach that they tend to do it more—

Lady Olga Maitland: Do what?

Mr. Cohen: They regard things as "natural" or "unnatural". I am talking about the terms, not whether they practise gay sex more, although that is perhaps what the hon. Lady thought. It is part of their political approach to use the terms "natural" and "unnatural", but such use is inappropriate.
Such usage allows a generous leap to be made: from talking about unnatural practices, which presumably means unnatural intercourse, one is soon talking about their being practised by unnatural people. That involves only a short leap, and there is a danger that judges could interpret the Bill in that way.
Males could be considered the more aggressive gender, in an historical context and perhaps also today in view of current crimes. There is and has been a great deal of rape, but is it to be considered natural because men carry it out? That is a dangerous argument. We legislate against rape not because it is unnatural but because it is socially unacceptable behaviour and we want to protect women from it. The use of the terms "natural" and "unnatural" is wrong in this context because they could be used to argue that such aggressive behaviour is natural. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the terms with acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that is my main beef with him. He should remove from clause 1 the four words in brackets.
We should remember that the Bill is about children. As the House will know, experts believe that the great majority of children go through a phase of homosexual behaviour of one form or another. It is usually an experimental or mild form, and the children often grow up heterosexual.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cohen: I shall in a moment. However, it is wrong that children should be branded as practising unnatural behaviour.

Mr. Merchant: A number of things that the hon. Gentleman has said have puzzled me, and I am not sure that I have followed the drift of his argument. I cannot let him get away with his last assertion. Recent studies have shown that the proportion of men who have been involved in homosexual activity is very small. Some of the latest figures suggest that that applies to between only 1 and 5 per cent., so how on earth can the hon. Gentleman say that the majority of people have been involved in homosexual activity?

Mr. Cohen: Different experts have different views Studies have shown that children go through a homosexual phase, but I said that it was a mild form and part of experimenting with sexuality generally.

Lady Olga Maitland: Could the hon. Gentleman provide evidence that the majority of young people indulge in homosexual activity? What are the sources and cases that he can cite to support such a sweeping statement?

Mr. Cohen: I do not think that I said it was the majority, but I leave it to the experts to argue about that. The hon. Lady is coming close to saying that children do not experiment with sexuality, but they do. Any schoolteacher or anyone who works with children will tell her that children experiment with different forms of sexuality. One of my objections to the Bill is that they would be branded as unnatural if they did not conform to the hon. Gentleman's idea.

Lady Olga Maitland: Has the hon. Gentleman had any meetings or discussions with teachers on this issue?

Mr. Cohen: I have met teachers to discuss all sorts of issues. Many teachers have told me that they favour sex education in schools precisely because of children's experimentation. As I have said many time before, I am shocked that some Conservatives Members often block sex education for dogmatic reasons. If they had their way and if sex education in schools were stopped, there would be no information at all.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the new draft circular on sex education issued by the Department for Education? If he had, he would not have made that statement.

Mr. Cohen: That circular was issued only after considerable pressure had been applied. Before the recess, I made a speech in the House, adding to that pressure. The circular was greeted with howls of protest, not from Labour Members but from the Conservative lobby opposed to sex education. The Conservatives' objections were quoted in the press, so the hon. Gentleman should be talking to his colleagues.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the advice being proferred by the Government became controversial only when a Minister was asked on "The World at One" whether the Government would consider making condoms available in schools? It had nothing to do with the advice in the circular.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the debate continues, I must point out that we are debating an amendment, not a wider issue, which this threatens to become.

Mr. Cohen: I have no desire to make it a wider issue. As I am always helpful to Conservative Members, I have been trying to respond to their points.

Mr. James Couchman: I do not seek to challenge your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Couchman: I am always obedient in these matters. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill was given a Second Reading on the nod and there was only 20 minutes of debate in Committee. A number of us have considerable worries about the Bill. Is it your preferred option that we should reserve the expression of those worries for a lengthy Third Reading debate or will you be

fairly tolerant with our casting our comments reasonably widely during our debate on the two groups of amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am concerned only with relevance. How long that may take is not for me to judge.

Mr. Cohen: I always try to abide by your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to prolong the debate and I am trying to keep to the amendment. The intervention by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) may have extended the debate a little, but my initial comments related purely to the amendment and to my wish to remove the words "whether natural or unnatural". Again, I call on the hon. Member for Harlow to say exactly what he means by those words. I believe that he has confused those terms with the concept of socially acceptable or socially unacceptable behaviour. That is what worries me most. I am worried about how judges or others will interpret the terms when dealing with children. Children may be branded as practising unnatural behaviour and I do not believe that that is right. I shall say more about the other implications when I speak to anmendment No. 2.
I am the promoter of a similar Bill, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which is far more extensive than this Bill. It deals especially with the issue of rape. My Bill would make male rape a specific criminal offence for the first time. It would do that simply by changing the definition of the victim from "woman" to "person" and it would thus allow men to be considered in law to be the victims of rape.
In this Bill, we are talking about young boys, for example, practising what the hon. Member for Harlow calls "unnatural" acts. Despite his shaking his head earlier, my great suspicion is that he is really referring to homosexual acts. The Bill, as its short title shows, is about sexual intercourse. It will be interesting to hear him describe to what other unnatural acts the Bill refers. Boys, like men, may be involved in male rape. Perhaps that is one of the offences to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.
Male rape is not a specific crime at present and I believe that it should be. There is an assumption that only women can be raped, which simply is not true. Men and young boys could well become the victims of rape. The police record the number of offences of indecent assault against men, and those numbers have increased. In London, they have doubled over the past 10 years. It is a serious problem which should be addressed. The Metropolitan police to whom I have spoken believe that more than nine out of 10 cases are not reported because the victims fear that they may be criminalised, that they may be branded homosexual, or that the police will take no action because the offence of male rape does not exist. It is necessary to make male rape a crime. That gap in the law remains under this Bill.
This is the age of bringing legislation to bear on sexual offences, such as child abuse, so legislation on male rape should be introduced. The mere fact that the subject is brought out into the open—this is part of what the hon. Member for Harlow is attempting to do by recognising that such offences can be committed between the ages of 10 and 14—means that there will be more openness about reporting such offences and that action can then be taken. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman more questions on that when I speak to amendment No. 2. I hope that there will


be more openness about male rape as well. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in using the words "natural or unnatural". I shall be most interested to hear what he has to say about that. I still believe that those words should be removed from the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on having the imagination and alertness to recognise that there has been a serious anomaly on the issue. An attempt to put the anomalies right is long overdue. To date, it has been deemed physically impossible for a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of rape. Instead, the charge has been sexual assault.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) seeks to withdraw the words "whether natural or unnatural". He seemed to say that some believe that only natural sexual intercourse—in other words, between a boy and a girl—is acceptable and that it is unfair to suggest that sexual intercourse between two boys or two men is unnatural. We are really saying that sexual activity by force by a young boy against another person, whether a boy or a girl, should be included in the Bill. The Bill is not an attempt to be positively unfair to people who have indulged in homosexual activity.
It is important to say that we are not going down the route of homosexual bashing. There is nothing like that whatever. It is extremely important to point out that we are not trying to put homosexuals into a separate category. However, we are well aware that clarification is needed in the Bill. It would be iniquitous to concentrate only on heterosexual sex by force, without taking into account homosexual sex or other practices that may later be elucidated.

Mr. Cohen: Is the hon. Lady saying that homosexual sex is unnatural in terms of the Bill?

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, I am saying that homosexual activity is unnatural. My reason for saying that is simple. The vast majority of human beings on this earth are heterosexual with only a very small minority of people who are born with a natural instinct for homosexual activity. That does not make it the norm, and I am talking about the norm.

Mr. Cohen: So is the hon. Lady saying that hon. Members, including Conservative Members, who practise homosexual activities, are practising unnatural activities?

10 am

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes. As far as I am concerned, it does not matter who is or is not indulging in such activities; I think that they are unnatural. I do not want to go in for name calling or identifying of the individuals concerned. We are simply reflecting on the state of natural human beings today. It is important to clarify in the Bill exactly what we mean by rape and to make it clear that we are referring to all the different circumstances.
The unnatural element causes concern not least because, as a result of the tremendous amount of gay publicity on the television and in the press, young children are getting the idea that homosexuality is something with which they should experiment. I find that very worrying. It is worrying, too, that some teachers in some schools believe that they need to promote homosexual activity and heterosexual activity as being of equal value. Given that

that belief seems to be on the increase, it is all the more important that we should clarify in the Bill the fact that unnatural sex is included.
The hon. Member for Leyton seems to be suggesting that we are being unfairly hostile to unnatural sex. Should not we consider for a moment the victims of sexual assault —particularly assault that involves unnatural sex? The victim could be an adult, but is more likely to be another child, who may be emotionally and physically crippled for life as a result of the experience. A case in my constituency comes back to me with appalling clarity. A thoroughly normal, decent family could not understand why their little boy aged five had been unable to control his bowels for a number of years. The mother eventually noticed physical marks on the child's body, particularly around his anus, and managed, through careful questioning and by seeking advice and counselling, to discover that that child had been repeatedly raped by another boy over a period of years.
It is tremendously important that the child who perpetrated that offence—a school kid of about 13—should be brought to court under the new law and made responsible for his behaviour. At the moment, that child is no doubt running wild in a playground; he may be catching other children, taking them into cars and doing them appalling damage. The mental and physical effects are felt not only by the child who is the victim but by the family which makes it all the more tragic. Therefore, it is essential that we make it absolutely clear that unnatural behaviour, by which we mean homosexual behaviour, is included in the Bill.
I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind. In a wider context, it is important that children should be educated about sexual responsibility and behaviour. Teachers must not positively encourage homosexual behaviour as if it were the accepted norm; in fact only a very small minority of people engage in it. It worries me that chidlren are encouraged in this way against their natural instincts.
Our whole case rests on the fact that it is possible for rape to be committed by a boy on another boy. That must be made clear in the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill.

Mr. Bowen Wells: The clause worries me considerably. It seems to me obvious that, if we pass the Bill, it makes little difference whether we include or omit the words "whether natural or unnatural". If they are left out, the clause will read:
The presumption of the criminal law that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse is hereby abolished.
Presumably that will then mean all forms of sexual intercourse. The words "whether natural or unnatural" neither add anything to the Bill nor take anything away from it. Their excision would make no difference to the meaning of the Bill or to any other matter about which we need to be concerned this morning. I therefore support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I do not see any need to mention what form of sexual intercourse is implied or intended and I do not think that we need discuss what is natural or unnatural sexual intercourse.
The Bill provides that boys under the age of 14 who commit sexual acts can be charged under the criminal law. I am not certain that that is wise. As the hon. Member for Leyton said, sexuality starts from birth. That is my experience and is the experience of all the professionals.
Sexuality is a gradually learnt matter about which we should be honest and straightforward and which should be discussed, especially at home. Incidentally, the form that sex education in schools takes needs to be examined carefully. Sex education should be treated very sensitively and ought to include teaching about the emotional content that should go with the whole experience of sexuality. The absence of any emotional content from such learning is a serious mistake.
It seems to me that we are not talking about rape. Most of the debate this morning has been about forced sexual intercourse, which is abhorrent at any age. In my view, however, the Bill would make it a criminal offence for any sexual intercourse to take place between children of whatever sex. I do not believe that the criminal law is the right way to treat such matters. I feel that we should adopt a much more sympathetic attitude to such activities among children—one which does not criminalise them and stigmatise them for life. We need counselling and thoughtful intervention and we need very carefully thought out procedures.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Before my hon. Friend proceeds any further along that line, I remind him that the Bill is all about rape; it is about penetrative sex. It does not deal with consensual sex between teenagers of whatever gender or orientation, which must always be a matter for the sympathetic discretion of the prosecuting authorities. There is no way that, in reasonable consensual circumstances, the prosecuting authorities will prosecute young men under the age of 21 for homosexuality or any other similar offence. The Bill is specifically about rape.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful for that explanation, and I hope that it will be noted carefully if the Bill reaches the statute book and if any action is taken in a court of law. I do not believe that that is what the Bill says. It may be what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) intends, but it is not what the Bill says.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I believe that there is an air of puzzlement about the debate. The Bill does not force on us all the interpretations and ramifications in respect of the law that have been suggested. It simply ends a nonsense; it removes a legal myth.
The common-sense interpretation is that which is being placed on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and that is why he moved his simple amendment. There is a certain amount of common sense and sympathy in relation to the removal of those words. However, we must consider what that will do to the way in which the Bill is interpreted in relation to other Acts, which may be unsatisfactory but which are already on the statute book.
It would be sensible if the House tried to ensure that we did not frustrate the intention, upon which we are all united, of ending this nonsense. I hope that we will not simply apply common sense because the law does not always work in a common-sense way, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) would agree. We must be very careful to ensure that we do not do something that we do not intend to do in respect of the Bill.

Mr. Wells: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We must be very careful indeed about the ramifications. On the surface, this is a very sensible piece of proposed legislation. We all know that children are capable of penetrative sex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) described. Therefore, we should, in common sense, change the position.
However, what are the ramifications? There is a law which forbids sexual intercourse below the age of 16. Many hon. Members and members of the public believe that that age of consent should be lowered. However, if we combine that with this Bill, if sexual intercourse is entered into freely—and is not rape—it becomes a criminal offence for which both parties could be taken to a court of law.

Mr. Hayes: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for giving way to me again. The Bill is about the presumption of capacity. In other words, it does not matter whether the act of penetrative sex has taken place; the child is presumed in law, if he is under the age of 14, to be incapable of that act. I believe that that is manifest nonsense, and that is the anomaly and absurdity which the Bill seeks to redress.

Mr. Wells: It is, of course, absurd in common sense and human experience. However, it seems to me that the law has the effect of protecting boys under the age of 14 from being accused of a criminal offence for taking part in consensual sex between the sexes.

Mr. Hayes: I disagree with my hon. Friend because the law allows for a prosecution of a lesser offence of indecent assault. As was said in Committee, and has been said elsewhere, it is ridiculous that a young man under the age of 14 who has committed a physical act of rape cannot be charged with the offence of rape. He can be charged only with indecent assault. That does not reflect the gravity of the offence.

Mr. Wells: I am not even certain of that. Although I find abhorrent the whole concept of rape and any kind of force involved in the sexual act between any partners, none the less, the act of rape in those circumstances, and at the ages about which we are concerned, is something which I am not certain we should criminalise. Would we put someone who has committed that act in prison or in a place of restraint? Is that the kind of law that we want imposed on the children of this country? I honestly do not think that we should do that.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) makes her intervention, may I point out that the debate is now broadening out once more. We must return to the amendment.

Lady Olga Maitland: It is important that I reply quickly to the point about whether the offence can be committed by these young people and whether it would be right and appropriate to lock them up. Children have committed rape. I visited a secure unit this week and saw a 14-year-old boy who had committed a rape, although he was obviously charged with sexual assault. He was in that secure unit because he needed psychological and psychiatric help. That was the best place for him to receive it.

Mr. Wells: I will return to the narrow point about the amendment after I have replied briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam.
Of course, boys under the age of 14 are capable of rape: I know that that is the case. However, I question whether such sexual intercourse, natural or unnatural, should become a criminal offence. Is that the right way to deal with it?
Sexual intercourse, whether natural or unnatural, should not be included. All sexual intercourse, particularly if it is narrowly defined in respect of rape, should be included in the Bill. However, I am not sure whether criminalising it is the right way to treat such cases. There should be psychiatric treatment, counselling and restraint. However, it should not be criminal.

Mr. Merchant: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill, which will correct an anomaly in the present law which has clearly been seen to be having a major effect on society, the legal system and the maintenance of law and order.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) when he said that on some occasions we must be blind to common sense so far as the law is concerned. As he represents an Opposition party, I am tempted to say that he perhaps experiences being blind to common sense rather frequently. However, when we consider definitions in law, it is clear that at times the use of phrases appears somewhat contradictory, simply because legalistic matters are phrased in rather anachronistic language.
I have been goaded into intervening in the debate by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I fear that the amendment, which I accept is well intentioned, might frustrate the intention of the Bill. I should hate to see that happen and that is why I want to answer some of his points.
The purpose of the Bill is clear. So long as its drafting is in harmony with the law as it is drafted in other areas in respect of these matters, we should be content with that and aim to support the greater objective of ensuring the Bill a safe passage.
The Bill deals with matters that have changed over the years. In that respect, I refer to the age of maturity and the capacity to rape which is linked with that. There is little doubt that the age of maturity has changed over the years for many reasons, primarily because of the healthier way in which our children are brought up these days. As a consequence, a law that may have been perfectly satisfactory some time ago, has now ceased to be so. Apparent anomalies are occurring which result in young men—which is what they are—performing acts that the laws says that they are unable to perform. Adjusting the law to enable prosecutions to take place when they clearly should take place is an important tidying-up measure which must be welcomed. Therefore, in a sense, the Bill aims to abolish an archaic presumption and must be phrased in the way in which the existing law is phrased when dealing with these matters. The phrase "natural or unnatural" falls into that set of definitions.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Leyton. He always deploys his arguments in a unique way, and I enjoy listening to them. I know that he was speaking from the heart on this matter and feels strongly about it.
However, I still feel that he is missing the point. We must consider what the phrase "natural or unnatural" means.. As I see it, it does not simply refer to heterosexual or homosexual sex: it refers to sexual acts that the law has seen over the centuries as either natural or unnatural. That does not necessarily put a subjective judgment of what is right or wrong on the practices that the phrase seeks to describe; it is merely a legalistic phrase which is well accepted in the law and appears in all sorts of other laws dealing with this subject. It is a form of archaic prose, but it is well understood and well defined in legalistic terms. That is significant in a law such as this, because the law must be precise.
When a law is being defined and interpreted in a host of different cases, those who are intepreting it must know precisely what the words mean. The words in the Bill are well defined in terms of the law. They should not be read as a common man or a man in the street might read them: they should be read through the eyes of lawyers—and that applies a totally different analysis and definition.

Mr. Wells: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the law is a stranger to common sense. I wonder whether he could help the House by telling us where the phrase "natural or unnatural" occurs in other laws that deal with this subject.

Mr. Merchant: I cannot give my hon. Friend chapter and verse. All I can say is that the phrase "natural or unnatural" owes its origin in legalistic terms to the middle ages. It is present in a series of legal judgments and laws that were cast in the middle ages. Since then, the phrase has been well used in the law courts.

Mr. Hayes: The phrase comes from section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for filling in a gap in the knowledge of the law that has eluded me recently. I am sure that he will agree that the phrase does not exist solely in the Act. Nor was it invented solely in those terms.
I run the risk of moving too far away from my specific subject, which is that the phrase "natural or unnatural" should be interpreted from the legal point of view. The phrase is used in the courts and understood by lawyers, and it should not be interpreted—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was doing persuasively, but inaccurately, in this context—through the eyes of the ordinary man in the street. In other words, it is not meant to condem people as unnatural people, which is what he said. Nor is it meant to be used in a scientific sense, literally meaning what nature intended. Instead, it is used to describe different forms of activity in a shorthand legalistic phrase and in a way which is understood by lawyers and the courts.
I conclude—because I do not want to detain the House —by saying that the hon. Member for Leyton has allowed himself to become overexcited by clause 1 and has perhaps created an unnecessary debate. To omit the words "natural or unnatural" would leave the Bill more or less intact. However, we would run the risk of allowing it to run into difficulty in practical application because of the technical language used. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to compromise and accept that the words will not be emblazoned on buildings outside and upset people in the street or cause people to change their behaviour, but are


technical words to ensure that the Bill achieves its objective —an objective with which I am sure he would not disagree —they should be welcomed, and we should not make too much over three words.

Mr. Hayes: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for his common-sense approach to the matter—I wholeheartedly agree with him. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) who gave us a sensitive rendition of some of the difficulties. I am not sure whether I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), but he is a dear and personal friend. I am grateful to him, and he can buy me a large drink later.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). He is a tireless campaigner for human rights in all sorts of areas. I agree with much of what he said. The purpose of the legislation is to clear up an anomaly, an absurdity. The law must be 100 per cent. clear. The word "unnatural" is an anachronism which goes back to section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is not a word which I especially welcome in legislation. However, if it is not in the Bill, it makes nonsense of the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Minister will listen most carefully to what has been said today. If he chooses at some stage in later legislation to have a careful look at section 44, I should be the first to welcome it. Hon. Members should not think for a moment that I am homophobic. I sit on the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) which specifically examines discriminatory laws and suggests to the Government how such laws can be changed, so this is not an attack on the gay community, and should not be seen as such.

Mr. Wells: I wonder whether my hon. Friend could explain his arguments. He is saying that he needs the words "natural and unnatural" in the Bill to make it consonant or work with other legislation on this subject. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said, that is archaic and comes from the middle ages, or presumably from Shakespearean language, why should we continue to use these archaic legal jargons in shorthand? Why should we not be straightforward in our legislation and make it abundantly clear to the ordinary people in the street? We should not have wretched lawyers, who are paid immense fees, interpreting the law and therefore making it so much more expensive. Let us be straightforward. Let us not have "natural and unnatural" in the Bill.

Mr. Hayes: As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right: let us be straightforward. This is not the legislation in which we can change the anachronism. The difficulty is the interpretation by judges in other places. Judges will look at section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for the definition of "penetrative sex". If my hon. Friend wants that straightforwardness, the 1956 Act should be changed, not the Bill. We need clarity in the law. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leyton when he said that this is not the time and the place to get the clarity that we want.
I did not want before lunch to get into other areas of unnatural sex, but the hon. Gentleman rightly wanted a further definition. Of course, the definition spreads much wider than anal intercourse: it also involves animals and

bestiality. Perhaps there are all sorts of changes that my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to examine at another time—this is not the time and the place to discuss them—whereby there can be clear definitions of "anal intercourse", "vaginal intercourse" and "intercourse with an animal". I submit that this is not the time and the place.
I ask the hon. Member for Leyton to listen carefully to what has been said today. The House is not unsympathetic to the argument put by the hon. Gentleman, who talked a lot of common sense; perhaps it is time for a review. I ask him to remember that the Bill is designed to clear up an anomaly, an absurdity, in the law. We are talking about penetrative sex and, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, we are not talking about offences that would criminalise people, because those offences have been criminalised already. We are talking about an offence that properly reflects the gravity of the act. I ask the hon. Member for Leyton to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Michael: It is clear that the amendment would improve the language of the Bill so that ordinary people could understand it better, but it would damage it by retaining the assumption of incapacity in relation to such things as bestiality and other forms of intercourse. The problem is that the Bill clears up one anomaly in the law —it disposes of one piece of nonsense—while leaving plenty of other anomalies and anachronisms to be tackled by the House at a later stage.
It is dangerous for the House to try to do too much, particularly under a private Member's Bill. To delete the three words "natural or unnatural" from the Bill would not do what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton sensibly seeks to achieve. If a new definition replaced those words, it might meet my hon. Friend's aim, but that in itself would pose a danger, because new words are always open to interpretation by the courts. In any event, that alternative is not available to us. Perhaps that can be considered in another place at the appropriate time. If we introduced a new and wider definition, we might fail to achieve what the House intended.
For that reason, I encourage my hon. Friend, whose argument was taken seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not to frustrate the intention of this simple piece of legislation by pressing his amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I endorse the wise advice from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen).
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) gave a correct interpretation of the way in which the Bill is drafted when he referred to section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. All pieces of legislation borrow from previous legislation to ensure consistency. The Bill has done the same in order that the legal world is in no doubt, according to current definitions, as to its exact intent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke at length about the problem of definition. All of us who are not lawyers understand his argument about the need for clarity. The abolition of the presumption that young men under 14 are incapable of intercourse, however, was considered as part of the final report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which reported in 1984 on this matter.
Although that committee felt that the issue of presumption was a key part of its recommendations, the question of definition did not form part of its substantive decision to recommend that the abolition of presumption should be subject to a parallel change. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has followed the committee's recommendations carefully when drafting the Bill. As a result, I urge the hon. Member for Leyton to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation of the curious wording in the Bill. Does he agree that accepting recommendations from the Criminal Law Revision Committee is a hazardous business, especially when we consider the effect of the amendments introduced under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in magistrates courts and others? It is unwise simply to accept recommendations from such a committee. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider his acceptance of its recommendations.

Mr. Jack: I shall not trespass into issues connected with the Criminal Justice Act 1991, much as many hon. Members may want me to do so. No one disagreed with the recommendations of that particular report, which were widely considered. That committee would be the first to admit that not all its recommendations meet with such approval. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Leyton, as other hon. Members have done, to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Cohen: I note what has been said, but I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) who said that we should legislate clearly and mean what we say and say what we mean. We should amend section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said about the possibility of this matter being considered in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
'(2) This Act shall come Into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3 in page 1, clause 2, leave out lines 9 and 10.
No. 4, in page 1, clause 2, leave out line 11.

Mr. Cohen: The amendment would give the Home Office time to consider the implications of the Bill and whether any follow-up measures are necessary.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was right to ask whether the criminal law was the right means to deal with this matter and spoke about the need for counselling. We should remember that we are dealing with children between the ages of 10 and 14 and that counselling is needed for the victim and the perpetrator. The Home Office should consider such implications rather than just let the Bill go through.
We must consider whether the Bill will tilt power more towards the police as opposed to youth agencies, social services and social workers. Is the Bill more about punishment than reform and help? Branding young people as criminals has a disproportionate effect on them, as we

know from the high rate of suicide among young people in prison. Such a label will affect children in later life. There is a lot of hysteria about youth crime but we should not be caught up in it. We should consider the matter seriously.
The Bill will come into force two months after its enactment, but time should be given to consider its implications and definitions. We must consider whether other changes can sensibly be made to this part of the law.

Lady Olga Maitland: Once the Bill is enacted, it should come into force right away. I do not believe that there is any necessity to wait two months. The public will expect us to get on with it. Why should young offenders be allowed to get away with such awful crimes? They are awful and serious crimes. Why should the perpetrators be allowed to get away with them for another two months?
There is growing public awareness of the scale of the crimes among young people. Parliament would open itself to ridicule if it were not seen to deal with the problem straight away. If it were seen to hesitate, it could make the public wonder how serious Parliament was about the issue. A difficult position could arise. What would happen if there were a horrible attack within the two months period which received saturation press coverage—such as the tragic case of little James Bulger? Would not Parliament look stupid if it were crippled by its own Act and could not take action immediately?
There is much concern about tackling the issues in the public domain. There is a feeling that young people are too precocious and believe that they can get away with their actions because society has created a climate in which all forms of violent sex are permitted. The Bill is an excellent way for the Government to be seen to take direct action and respond immediately.
The Bill is not an attempt to be hostile; we are not trying to pick on naughty or mischievous children. There is no danger of such children being brought to court by mistake. We must ensure that the prosecution has to prove that the accused boy clearly understands that what he did was seriously wrong. There is no excuse for any sexual offence. Such offences are not caused by material deprivation; tragically, the perpetrators of such crimes seem to come from broken homes where there has been a moral breakdown rather than a material breakdown. Society would now support the idea of taking a stiffer approach.

Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend give any evidence to support her assertion that such activity is particularly prevalent among children who come from broken homes? I believe that it takes place at all levels of society and is carried out by those from all sorts of homes.

Lady Olga Maitland: Yes, the activity happens at all levels of society, but there is evidence—I cannot cite examples now as I do not have the sources to hand—to show that those from broken homes, where there are no benchmarks of social and sexual behaviour and a sort of "anything goes" attitude, display a prevalence for a violent approach to sex because the children do not receive parental guidance. Tragically, the perpetrators of violent sex are often young people who have themselves been sexually abused.

Mr. Merchant: I can assist my hon. Friend by assuring her that all the recent studies on sexual abuse of children have shown that it is much more prevalent when the


parents have been abused. That fact cross feeds into sexual offences. There is a clear, identifiable current running through the cases. I am not denying that it happens elsewhere, but the majority of cases display those characteristics. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the Bill will help to identify those involved in the problem at an earlier age, which must be in the interests of all those concerned—victims and offenders.

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Lady continues, I should remind her that this is not a Third Reading debate. We are considering specific amendments, and the discussion must relate to them more closely.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) are appropriate because we are trying to analyse why it is crucial to legislate now. My hon. Friend rightly said that it was important to analyse why the cases occur. I totally support his view that the children who have been abused often have parents who have been abused. I remember another tragic case that came before me in which the mother had been abused and her parents had been abused. It was a family of abuse in which a culture of violence had grown up which the children took on.
It is important that the Bill should be given a swift passage, not merely through its parliamentary procedure, but into law. The cases that have come to light are worrying. In 1989, 287 boys were cautioned for indecent assault on females—rape, which means penetrative sex. Proceedings went ahead in another 37 cases; 25 of the defendants were found guilty.
Earlier in the debate there was discussion about indecent assault on males—homosexual acts. The related figures are that in 1989 proceedings went ahead in three cases and all the defendants were found guilty. Some 29 males were cautioned. I agree with the school of thought that such offences are not on the same scale as those involving heterosexual sex, but they must be taken into account.
I am not straying wide of the mark, Madam Deputy Speaker, but trying to emphasise the urgency of the matter. The figures rose in 1990. There were 47 proceedings involving sexual assaults—which we should now call rape—on females, and 26 of the defendants were found guilty. However, a much higher number were cautioned: 245. There were four proceedings which went ahead involving males assaulting males, and two defendants were found guilty. It is important to note that there was a considerable increase in the number of those cautioned, which rose to 44.
The latest figures for 1991 show the urgency of the issue. In 1991, 46 young men faced proceedings for indecent assault on females—rape—of which 23 were found guilty; and, overall, 225 were cautioned. There were three proceedings which went ahead involving indecent assaults on males—male rape—and two defendants were found guilty. There were 43 cautions. Therefore, the figures are going up, not down. We cannot afford to allow any time to elapse.
When we consider some of the cases that have come to light, we realise how urgent the matter is. In 1990, Sir William Shelton, a former very respected Member of the House, introduced a private Member's Bill which included a clause to abolish the presumption, but the Bill was talked out at its Report stage because hon. Members opposed another clause referring to kerb crawling. That was a pity, because important issues were at stake.
In the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the then Home Office Minister, now the Secretary of State for Education, made some observations. He pointed out the importance of realising the serious nature of what is going on, citing the case of a four-year-old victim who was handicapped and epileptic—raped by a boy next door aged 13. Another case concerned a victim who was only five; and in another, the victim, aged 10, was gang raped while visiting friends. Some 13-year-old boys dragged her upstairs and raped her. Finally, there was the sickening case of a multiple attack on a married women in her late 20s, a mother of three, by schoolboy rapists, all of whom were under 14 years old. And let us not forget the recent case of the schoolteacher who was violently attacked by a schoolboy.
For all those reasons, I do not think that there is any time to waste.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but she tends to miss the point about what is missing from the Bill. If this Bill were passed, many of the 225 cases of indecent assault on females dealt with in 1991–92 would have been re-categorised in the courts as rape, and no additional penalties would have been available as a result. I would expect that none of the 46 people who were proceeded against in the courts as a result of those acts of rape would have been given a custodial sentence—and most people in Britain would find that horrendous.

Lady Olga Maitland: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the courts dealing with children in these cases often pass the responsibility for them back to the social services and local authorities. The latter can decide whether to put a child into a children's home or whether to recommend that the child goes to a secure unit. Local authorities should make far greater use of secure units, the more so since I know that they have enormous facilities in those units. That would help the child, who is clearly the victim of his own illness, and society, because people would then know that something was being done.

Mr. Nigel Evans: We are talking about rape, which is an horrendous act. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the legislation covering juvenile offences comes before this Chamber, it should take account of children aged 14 and below who commit rape and who may therefore be properly punished? As has been pointed out, the law does not allow for that at present.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must be careful; we are going wide of the amendments, which relate mainly to the timing of the operation.

Lady Olga Maitland: The timing of the operation is what my hon. Friend is talking about—hence the urgency of his remarks. He is quite right to say that much more attention should be given to the sentences that children serve.
I believe that it is urgent that we implement this measure. Society will support it; indeed, society believes that we have been too lax for too long. Now is the time to put that right.

Mr. Wells: The more I hear about the Bill, the less I like it. It is clear to me that we need time for reflection before it is put into effect. In particular, we need to think about the Bill's ramifications and its effect on other laws relating to juvenile sentencing of the children who, if the Bill is passed, will be accused of criminal acts and then "punished" for them. That is a serious thing to do to children.
The point that I have been trying to make has not yet been answered. In my layman's reading of the Bill, it seems to apply to all sexual offences, not just to rape. Lawyers may be able to interpret it as applying only to rape, but it says that it is about sexual offences: to a layman, that means all sexual offences. I am sure that lawyers, using medieval and arcane arguments, will be able to claim that the Bill covers only rape, even though that is not what it says. If they say that, I shall have to accept it. The fact remains, however, that none of the horrific cases or the increase in the number of such cases adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) would have been affected by the enactment of the Bill. The only result will be the criminalisation of under-age sex, and there will be no proper provision for the children involved and no attempt to correct their behaviour so that they can grow into well-balanced adults who are unlikely to undertake such activities again. The Home Office will have to think these matters through carefully and sensitively.
In recent years, the Home Office has all too often taken precipitate action on recommendations made to it by the great and the good. We have not benefited from that, and at times the law has been made to look an ass.

Mr. Couchman: I share my hon. Friend's concern that we should not take precipitate action on the Bill or enact it without due care and attention. We have indeed passed some dreadful laws on the spur of the moment, such as those affecting dangerous dogs and football supporters, among others. I am, however, worried about my hon. Friend's thinking about whether it is right to punish people under 14 years of age. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) has said time and again that the Bill is about the crime of rape—penetrative sex—not about minor experimentation. It is about serious crime., and serious crime must be seen to be punished.
One of the great weaknesses of the Bill—I hope to say more about this in a lengthy contribution on Third Reading—is that it provides no more deterrence or punishment than current law already provides for.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) continues, I must caution the House that we are getting off the point again. This group of amendments concerns when the Act shall come into force, but the arguments that I hear are more about whether we should pass the Bill at all.

Mr. Wells: My argument is that we should be careful about implementing the Bill within two months of enactment. I agree with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who wants some time to elapse in which Ministers can reflect and take advice before implementation, to

make sure that the Bill has no unexpected side effects on other laws or other ways of treating people who will be considered to offend under the Act.

Mr Hayes: My hon. Friend has asked a question, and although I am a member of the Bar and have practised as such for many years, I will give him an answer in simple, laymen's terms. Crime is like baking a cake; before we can make a cake one has to have the necessary ingredients. The ingredients for the crime of rape are that there has to be sexual intercourse. The definition of sexual intercourse is full penetrative sex. The Bill therefore tidies up the anomaly surrounding one of the ingredients of the offence —sexual intercourse. Without the one, the other cannot exist.

Mr. Wells: All hon. Members are capable of reading clause 1 which states:
The presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural) is hereby abolished.
Sexual intercourse is not rape; it is an enjoyable affair between two consenting people, usually male and female. If it were rape, we should be guilty of it every hour of the day and night. [Interruption.] That is what the Bill says and the lawyers who abound among us have not refuted that.
11 am
I am trying to speak exactly in line with the amendment which I commend to the House because it gives time for reflection. This is over-hasty legislation which we shall regret. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) spoke about punishment and the intent of the Bill. Punishment for sexual offences, especially those involving young people, deserves careful investigation and thought. If offenders are placed in social services homes, their predilection to engage in violent sex or sex of all kinds will be encouraged.
Criminalising such activities by the young would enhance and reinforce their attraction. The House must decide what to do with such people so that they will grow into well-balanced, non-violent people who will make a constructive contribution to the life of the country.

Mr. Michael: There was some disgraceful trivialisation in parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The Bill is so simple and contains such common-sense improvements that I am surprised that we are taking so long over it. I am tempted to the unworthy thought that the sudden interest by Conservative Members in the minutiae of the likely effect of the Bill might have something to do with their opposition to the Medicines Information Bill, which seeks to protect ordinary people and end secrecy in the pharmaceutical industry about the development and sale of drugs. That Bill should be debated this morning.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to impugn the integrity of Conservative Members who are interested in an important if brief Bill? It is the very brevity of the Bill which worries some of us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It would be unduly sensitive to pay too much attention to such remarks. I hope that hon. Members will keep to the point.

Mr. Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. I have said all that needs to be said on the Bill and I note the embarrassment of Conservative Members.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) called for a sense of urgency. I agree, because it is wrong that the anomaly in the law was not put right by the Government years ago. Now that we have the opportunity to put it right, thanks to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), we should take it seriously and make sure that we get the legislation right.
We should not rush. I am opposed to retrospective legislation and have opposed it when it has been introduced by the Government. That bad practice is contained in one of the amendments in the group, and we should not go down that road. The issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) are important. There is a need for counselling and preventive work and we must recognise the serious problems and tackle the type of cases about which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke. However, the problems are not triggered by the Bill; nor is the need for counselling and prevention, because that exists now. The problem is that the task is given to voluntary organisations in the social work sector and statutory bodies which are stretched past sensible limits, bearing in mind the seriousness of the issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is with me on the Front Bench this morning, and other colleagues in Labour's health and social services team are very concerned about these issues, which we take seriously. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the nature of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton has highlighted. I also hope that the Minister will undertake to speak to his right hon. Friends in the Health Department and in Departments dealing with social services and local government to try to ensure an improvement in the help and counselling that are available for victims and offenders, so that they may be prevented from further ruining their lives and creating more victims.
We should not try to do too much with the Bill and I hope that there is no suggestion of delaying its implementation until all the facilities are in place, because I suspect that we would have to wait rather longer than we would be happy about. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton not to press his amendment because it would place in the hands of the Minister the power to delay the implementation of the legislation. That is what makes me uneasy about the amendment.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I have never been accused of being overly sensitive, but the accusation by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that hon. Members are debating this issue only because they wish to delay another Bill is scandalous. We are debating the Bill because we are deeply interested in it.
It has been said that the Bill is over-hasty, but that cannot be the case, because a similar Bill was introduced in 1990 and was talked out by the hon. Member for Brent East (Mr. Livingstone). I agree that the legislation is important and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, it should be introduced as soon as possible. If there needs to be a delay

of two months to ensure that everything is in its place and that the legislation is properly enacted, so be it, but there should be as little delay as possible.
No doubt other Bills will need to follow this one. As soon as it is enacted, we should look carefully at the Bill on juvenile offences that has been mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. He has said that he wishes to introduce such a Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows. I hope that Opposition Members will ensure that time is made available so that that Bill can be debated as soon as possible.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should not be so naive as to think that a statement by the Home Secretary that he wishes to bring Bills to the House quickly is as simple as meets the eye. There is a Criminal Justice Bill before the House this Session and there was one two years ago and they both missed all sorts of important matters that should have been considered by the House. A wish to present a Bill is not enough. The hon. Gentleman should not be so naive as to think that we have missed the fact that the Bill that we are considering took 20 minutes in Committee and so far has been debated here for one hour and 38 minutes.

Mr. Evans: I am neither naive nor sensitive. I look forward to the support of Opposition Members when a juvenile offences Bill comes before the House. It seems that we are considered guilty whatever we do. If we do not debate legislation, we are said to be over-hasty and failing to give it due consideration. If we do debate it, we are accused of being ponderous and attempting to talk the Bill out.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a third point —the offence of being irrelevant.

Mr. Evans: I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, who you are accusing of being irrelevant. If it is me, I stand before you guilty on that count.
As soon as the Bill can be enacted, the better—but I hope that there will be all-party support for ensuring that the right legislation is put on the statute book, so that those found guilty of rape—which is deemed an extremely serious offence in this country—are dealt with properly.

Mr. Hayes: I have known the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) far too long to be the slightest bit upset by him. As one of the few people—apart from you, Madam Deputy Speaker—who regularly sees the hon. Gentleman with hardly any clothes on, nothing surprises me. In case there is any misunderstanding, I shall explain that that happens in the gymnasium.
In case my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has not decided to withdraw her amendment, perhaps I may persuade her to do so. It is a general principle that a statute—particularly one dealing with criminal offences—affects only factual situations arising during the period of its operation. My hon. Friend's amendment goes against that principle by allowing the statute to be retrospective.
The fact that the Bill would not be retrospective does not mean that young boys who commit sexual offences covered by it would not be brought before the courts—although it is true that most of the offences of which they could be convicted would be indecent assault. I am not


persuaded that it would be in the best interests of justice to do as my hon. Friend suggests, and I ask her to withdraw her amendment at the appropriate time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An amendment that has not been moved cannot be withdrawn. Only one amendment is moved at a time.

Mr. Hayes: I sympathise with the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). The hon. Gentleman is saying, "Hang on for a moment. We do not want to rush things. There are many other matters to be considered. Sentencing is not being dealt with at this stage and other legislation must be taken into account." My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam is saying, "This is a very serious offence and those guilty of it should be dealt with straight away." I understand both points of view, but the matter must be put into perspective.
The offences in question are most serious. Figures for the five years from 1987 to 1991 show that nearly 215 boys aged between 10 and 13 were prosecuted for indecent assault on a female, and 1,260 were cautioned. Over the same period, 21 offenders were proceeded against for an indecent assault on a male and 187 were cautioned. In some of those cases—one cannot say precisely how many —there will have been penetration, and a charge of indecent assault would have been viewed by the victims as something of a euphemism.

Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify which amendment is under consideration? My understanding is that we are debating only amendment No. 2, in the name of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), which states:
This Act shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
Is that correct?

Madam Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman says is correct but not complete. Two other amendments which have a slightly different import are under consideration.

Mr. Hayes: I am dealing with all the amendments in the most even-handed way that I can. As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the three amendments are grouped.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) argue that the offence must be placed on the statute book as quickly as possible because something must be done. Something is being done. It is not as though the young people who commit such offences cannot be dealt with by the police and the courts—they can. The argument behind the Bill is that those offenders are being dealt with in an absurd fashion —that the crime of which they are convicted does not reflect the gravity of the actual offence.
I ask my hon. Friends to remember also that the police and the courts are under a tremendous burden in dealing with the legislation that the House pumps out like a sausage machine with great regularity. As Opposition Members pointed out, some of it is not as good and accurate as we would like. It would be only right and proper to give the authorities two months to understand precisely the purpose of the legislation. That is not a great

length of time—particularly as the young people concerned, although mercifully there will not be many of them, must be dealt with by the police.
I acknowledge also the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton, which was similar to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. The Bill does not address sentencing because we must wait for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to bring other legislation before the House. It would be wrong to delay clear and simple legislation such as the Bill on account of the sentencing aspect, when we know that will be appropriately dealt with at the correct time.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: We hope so.

Mr. Hayes: We all hope that will be so, and it will be for hon. Members on both sides of the House to rectify many of the mistakes for which we must all share responsibility. After all, we voted for the legislation.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene during the middle of his peroration. He has not yet answered my point as to why he claims that the Bill refers only to rape and not to any other form of sexual intercourse.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It would not be appropriate to deal with that point under this set of amendments.

Mr. Hayes: I am guided by you in these matters, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should love to debate that point with my hon. Friend. Given the number of interventions he made, perhaps he owes me a very large lunch today, and we could discuss the matter then.
I ask the hon. Member for Leyton to consider withdrawing his amendment in the interests of speed.

Mr. Cohen: I intend to withdraw my amendment, but I shall briefly make a couple of points. The hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) for talking out a Bill in the last Parliament, but that Bill addressed a completely different issue. It sought to deal with kerb-crawling and to create more offences of prostitution, which my hon. Friend opposed. It did not concern itself with children, as does the Bill now before us.
I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who made several genuine points. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also made a good point when she said that children who abuse were often abused themselves, as were their parents. That makes the case for counselling and help, yet the hon. Lady did not argue that point. She spoke only of locking up young offenders in secure units. More attention should be given to providing counselling and other help.

Lady Olga Maitland: Of course children who come from families with a history of abuse and who themselves commit offences of abuse against others need counselling, but where children are accused of rape—we are trying to define that—they should receive the appropriate sentence. At that age, I hope that they will also receive counselling.

Mr. Cohen: I have made my point. The point has also been made that it will not be sufficient just to pass the Bill. Implications will automatically flow from it. The Minister


cannot just wash his hands of it and say that after it is passed he will not have to worry about any of the implications. Having made my point, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Hayes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) suggested, from a sedentary position, that these proceedings are a filibuster. May I say both to him and to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), who has introduced some very important legislation which I sincerely hope will be considered by the House today, that when the Sexual Offences Bill came before the House on Second Reading it went through on the nod, simply because of lack of time. Therefore, it is important to have a full debate now. This is not a trivial piece of legislation. It deals with juvenile crime.

Mr. Giles Radice: I do not, of course, accuse the hon. Gentleman of anything, but he appears to have something of a guilty conscience. As far as I know, he broadly supports my Bill—but perhaps he wants virtue, though not just yet. It is true that there was no Second Reading debate, but I understand that in Committee the proceedings were so controversial that they went through in 20 minutes.

Mr. Hayes: The difficulty is that those who serve on Committees are not always willing participants, whereas those who come along on Friday mornings—when many Members believe that they should be with their families or their constituents—feel strongly that they should have the right to be heard.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: Yes, but then I must press on.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to press on, but I should like to clear him of any guilt relating to this matter. His contributions to the debate this morning have been very restrained, despite the fact that some of his hon. Friends have sought to widen the debate way beyond the limits of the Bill. However, the Second Reading went through' on the nod and the Committee stage took 20 minutes. The Bill has had its Report stage this morning, and all of a sudden, when we arrived at Third Reading, a large number of hon. Members wandered into the Chamber and jumped up, thus indicating that they wanted to speak. That looks to me like a filibuster and an attempt to talk out the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has introduced in an effort to protect the British public. That is a disgrace.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the point before to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) that we must stick to the point. If hon. Members want to speak on Third Reading, they are entitled to do so, but I suggest that that is exactly what they do.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that I am the only person who has come late to the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whether I am or not, I have strong reasons for being late. I am very interested in the Bill and wish to speak on Third Reading. It is not right for hon. Members to be pressurised in this way and to be denied their entitlement to speak on Third Reading. I am glad to note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are protecting us.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your ruling. I am delighted to say that the Bill has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench, as well as the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Ms Liz Lynne (Rochdale): The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill has the full support of the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I agree. Therefore, I cannot understand why it is taking so long.

Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Lady had been here longer, she might understand. She has been here for only about 10 minutes.

Ms Lynne: I understand that the Committee stage took 20 minutes and that there has been no opposition to the Bill whatsoever. Therefore, I reiterate my point: I do not understand why it is taking so long.

Mr. Hayes: Perhaps the prolonged absence of the hon. Lady and the fact that she had nothing to say was because she was convinced by the arguments.
It may help if I deal with the policy background. The Bill implements a recommendation of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its 1984 report on sexual offences, that the presumption of incapacity in law of boys between the ages of 10 and 13 should be abolished. That recommendation was included in a private Member's Bill in 1990 on sexual offences which received all-round support.
The offences covered include all crimes that involve an offender's capacity to penetrate the vagina or anus, rape, buggery, or attempts to commit these offences, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 or 16, unlawful sexual intercourse with a person suffering from a mental disorder or defect, or any other sexual offence involving penetration. May I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) that we are not criminalising consensual sex between teenagers, whether it be homosexual sex or heterosexual sex, or sex with animals.
Earlier I gave the figures for the past five years. Between 1987 and 1991 they show that nearly 215 boys, aged between 10 and 13, were prosecuted for indecent assault on females and that 1,260 were cautioned. Over the same period, 21 were proceeded against for indecent assault on males, and 187 were cautioned. In some of those cases, though we cannot say precisely how many, there will have been penetration. A charge of indecent assault will have seemed to the victims to have been quite outrageous. These offences cause real distress to the victims. That distress may be compounded if they then find that their attackers cannot be convicted of the right offence. That adds insult to injury.
Some hon. Members may ask what is the point of being convicted of the right offence if those convicted are not


then subjected to custody. That point was made properly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs).

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for briefing meetings for the filibuster to take place within the Chamber?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no knowledge of those matters.

Mr. Hayes: Some people may ask what is the point of young people being convicted of the right offence if they are not then subjected to custody. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest has made it clear, as have many of us on this side of the House, that we await with great interest what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary presents to us on the Floor of the House at some future time.
Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which gives courts powers to order the long-term detention of juveniles convicted of grave crimes, applies, in the case of those under 14, to the offences of murder and manslaughter, something which I hope will interest the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). Intensive community-based supervision has proved to be an effective way of responding to children of this age who commit serious offences. When removal from home is necessary, local authorities have powers under the Children Act 1989 to take care proceedings. When children in the care of local authorities need to be contained, a placement can be made in secure accommodation, provided that the criteria under the Children Act are met.
I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is working on proposals for a new sentence to provide education and training in a secure setting for juveniles who persistently offend. That will be welcomed not just in the House but throughout the country. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is also considering the adequacy of the scope of detention under section 53.
Some people may ask whether this legislation will penalise children unfairly. I believe that there is absolutely no risk of naughty or mischievous children being brought erroneously before the courts. The prosecution will have to prove that the accused understood that what he did was seriously wrong.
There is no need for the Bill to extend to Scotland since the common law has never recognised a presumption of incapacity, and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The Bill is simple, straightforward, clear and absolutely necessary. It is necessary for the young women who have been raped, taunted and have gone to hell and back only to find their attackers facing the ridiculous charge of indecent assault when they know that a wicked offence of rape has taken place. I commend the Bill to the House.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill—it certainly is not before time.
It is insulting to be accused by the Opposition of filibustering because I have had a long-standing interest in

the subject. I was not invited to be a member of the Standing Committee, but I wish that I had been. If I had, I would have made my speech then.
I am very concerned. I am a mother of three children and have brought them up to understand good sexual matters.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I take what the hon. Lady is saying with a pinch of salt. She had a choice of being a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Medicines Information Bill or the one that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, in which she says she is interested. She chose to be a member of the Committee that considered the Medicines Information Bill, which she attempted unsuccessfully to filibuster. She has turned up this morning—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to what we are debating.

Lady Olga Maitland: I trust that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks about me. I will stick to the main point because I am concerned about this matter.
Children need to be taught sexual manners. The tragedy of today is that they have been polluted by television, the press and society's attitude of take it, grab it and have it at any price.

Mr. Harry Greenway: My hon. Friend is making an important point, but it must be placed in the context of education. I have dealt with these matters over many years, and I do not think that it is easy to teach children sexual manners. They should be taught that sex should take place in a loving relationship.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend. I was coming to that point.
I have consistently said for a long time that sexual manners are a moral responsibility. The Bill addresses an extremely serious offence and children who commit it should not think they can get away with it because they will be charged with the minor offence of sexual assault. Young people who forcefully commit penetrative sexual offences should understand that society will not tolerate it.
We should also be paying much greater attention to the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow said, those victims have been through the personal agony of rape—that is what it is—and to have it dismissed as a seemingly more minor offence makes the agony worse. Victims are often young people—sometimes younger than their assailant. They and their families need a tremendous amount of counselling and support. Everyone should understand that rape is rape and that it cannot be described as another offence such as sexual assault.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I do not want to detain the House long because, despite what Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have said, I am interested in the Bill and have some sympathy with it, but there are important matters to be discussed.
My attitude is somewhat equivocal. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill, which is a sensible measure and should have been on the statute book long ago, but it is primarily, though not totally, a cosmetic measure and will


not do anything to right the wrongs by ensuring adequate punishment and counselling for those who are guilty of heinous crimes.
As long ago as 1984, the Criminal Law Revision Committee said that a Bill was necessary. Sir William Shelton introduced a Bill, which, sadly, was talked out by an Opposition Member. Speaking on the Second Reading of that Bill, the then Home Office Minister, the present Secretary of State for Education, said:
the law is adding to the injury of a vicious rape or a brutal act of sexual assault the insult that it did not happen."—[Official Report, 11 May 1990; Vol. 167, c. 608.]
That is why the Bill is so important. If the Government feel that the penalty for rape should be life imprisonment —the penalty has increased under this Government—the Bill should reflect that, especially as much of the case law on the capacity of a young person to commit rape comes from the 19th century. The latest case that I have been able to find is 1921. With greater nutrition, the sexual activity of children under 14 has greatly increased; hence the need for the Bill.
I understand that if a woman is raped by somebody under 14, she does not benefit from the same anonymity as if it were categorised as rape. Women will now benefit from that anonymity, which must be a step forward. The Bill will remove the anomaly whereby somebody under 14 can be convicted of aiding and abetting rape, but cannot be guilty of the full offence.
I appreciate hon. Members' concern for young people who commit this kind of appalling crime, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said, let us not forget the victims. Irrespective of whether a rapist is under 14 or not, the psychological trauma for women will be quite enormous and therefore the punishment should fit the crime.
Sadly, the Bill allows the conviction to fit the crime but says nothing about the punishment. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow wishing to await the Home Secretary's deliberations—possibly redeliberations—but the punishment regime for young offenders is inadequate. The Bill should have addressed that, but we may have an opportunity to discuss the matter in 10 days' time in an Adjournment debate on juvenile crime that I have been able to secure.
If the Bill is enacted, the court will have to be convinced that anyone who is convicted, first, committed the act, secondly, knew that what they were doing was wrong and, thirdly, had the mental maturity to realise the consequences of their action. We are not talking only about people who may have been too immature to appreciate the consequences of such an appalling crime but about people who should be punished because they knew perfectly well, as an adult would, what the consequences would be.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) who said in Committee:
For too long, the idea that containment is a necessary part of a custodial sentence has been put to one side."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 February 1993; c. 4.]
We have talked too often about rehabilitation and talked too little about retribution and the deterrence of potential offenders. I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said about section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 and the Children

Act 1989 in terms of the custodial sentence available for those under 14 years of age who commit the appalling crimes that we are now discussing, but I believe that, in the main, the regime of punishment for the under-14s is feeble.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the figures for such crimes. In England and Wales, of 757 instances of indecent assault on a female by males under the age of 14—admittedly not all of which were cases of rape—only five offenders were restrained in custody, although some may have received supervision orders. Despite the psychological damage that they had caused, only five offenders were restrained to prevent them from repeating their offence and in order to protect women.
The problem has been significantly exacerbated by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which effectively abolished detention in youth offender institutions for people under 15. That was a massively retrograde step and one which I hope the Home Secretary will very soon put right. I shall not delay the House by outlining what I saw when I recently visited my local youth attendance centre, which was used in five cases in 1991 to deal with people who had indecently assaulted females, but I believe that the menu of punishments available for juveniles is not good enough in terms of counselling or rigorous enough in terms of punishment, deterrence or society's retribution for the appalling crimes of which many of these youngsters are found guilty.
It is small wonder that, in relation to the same Criminal Justice Act, the Home Affairs Select Committee recently said:
The age limitations by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 on the use of secure accommodation should be the subject of research to determine the risks borne by the public by the apparent inability to control the activities of the hard-core persistent juvenile offenders under the age of 15.
I hope that when the Home Secretary publishes his proposals for secure accommodation for young offenders, he will not confine them to persistent offenders but will also deal with young people who may not have persistently offended but who have nevertheless been found guilty of crimes such as rape which most of us deplore.
It is crucial that we deal with the type of situation reported in The Guardian on 3 January last year. An Old Bailey judge ordered a 14-year-old boy who had raped a girl of the same age to be detained for 34 months. The judge said that the case
draws attention to the fact that legislation currently not only fetters but sometimes prevents juvenile courts from depriving young people of their liberty
in cases involving such heinous crime.
I know that I am talking about what is not in the Bill rather than what is in the Bill, but if we did not deal with these issues we should be talking about only a part of what is a difficult problem. I give a cautious half welcome to this half measure and look forward with great interest to the proposals to be made by the Home Secretary and his colleagues, which I hope will be better in terms of juvenile punishment.

Mr. Couchman: I am glad to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, during the Third Reading debate. I am slightly affronted by some of the comments made by members of Labour's Front Bench—

Mr. McCartney: He is paid by Pfizer.

Mr. Couchman: It is unusual for an hon. Member who is on his feet to raise a point of order, but I wish to draw attention to the insinuation of the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). It is quite deplorable and does not help us to make progress to the very important Bill on which I wish to speak at length after we have debated this Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear what I gather must have been a sedentary observation, but hon. Members know my views on sedentary observations. They will also know my views on matters which are not germane to the matter under discussion. I want to hear no more of it from anyone.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Sit down. I said that I wanted to hear no more.

Mr. Couchman: I do indeed wish to speak on the Medicines Information Bill which follows and I have tabled several important amendments to it. I have taken an interest in that Bill right from the word go, and I regret that it does not command a complete morning's debate for its Report and Third Reading because it deserves that. I am affronted by the insinuation that has been made.
It has been pointed out that the Sexual Offences Bill received its Second Reading on the nod—I think that was the description. I feel obliged to say that that is no doubt because it was second, third or even fourth on the Order Paper on that day. If it had not received a Second Reading on the nod, it would not have received a Second Reading at all because time would have run out and there would have been no opportunity to discuss it. That is regrettable, because I acknowledge that the speech that I am about to make is a Second Reading speech. I would have opposed the Bill on Second Reading had I had the opportunity to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Unfortunately, time has moved on, and the hon. Gentleman must make a Third Reading speech.

Mr. Couchman: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have contained myself during the wide-ranging discussion on the two groups of amendments.
As has been said exhaustively, the purpose of the Bill is to abolish the presumption in the current criminal law that a boy under 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse defined as penetration, whether natural or unnatural. It is presumed in common law that a boy aged between 10 and 13 is physically incapable of an offence that involves penetration and cannot therefore be charged with rape, but only with the less serious crime of indecent assault.
The Bill would amend the law to allow a boy between the ages of 10 and 13 to be charged with the appropriate offence if he commits any unlawful sexual act involving penetration. It seeks only to change the definition of the offence under which a 10 to 13-year-old juvenile male can be charged. It does not seek to make any provision for punishment of the new offence, and that is one of its great weaknesses. Although it may be seen as providing greater equity and justice in law for the victims—we have heard a great deal about that from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and others—it does not provide any greater deterrents. I am especially

worried by some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). He seemed to underestimate the seriousness of the offences that we have to consider.
There will be no distinction in the punishment available between the existing crime of indecent assault and the new crime of rape by juveniles. There was no debate on Second Reading and only 20 minutes' discussion in Committee. No amendments were moved in Committee and there were only three speakers, including the Minister. I regret that the Bill has had rather less discussion and consideration than it merits. It is a major step in terms of seeking to criminalise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford put it, certain offences committed by 10 to 13-year-olds.
I am especially concerned that the Bill is deficient in two major respects. It does not seek to define the exact nature of the new crime in terms that can be proven in court. It fails to provide new punitive measures for the crime that would deter potential offenders and treat adequately those convicted.
Definition is at the heart of the Bill. Numerous examples are available to show that sexual offences are very difficult to prove, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Sutton and Cheam. "Rape: from recording to conviction", the Home Office research and planning unit paper No. 71, gave the results of a three-month study in 1985 which concluded that cases of rape or attempted rape recorded by the police have only a one in four chance of resulting in a conviction. According to the study, only between one tenth and one quarter of women suffering rape report the crime to the police.
The university of North London has conducted more recent research which suggests that the conviction rate has fallen below the 1985 average, despite changes in the criminal justice system. Of 114 cases of rape or attempted rape reported to north London police stations, only 15 reached the Crown court and only four resulted in prison terms. A further 11 cases were sent to court as indecent assault charges. As one of the researchers concluded:
corroboration is very often difficult in rape cases.
It is worth mentioning again the timely example of the recent case of a Southwark school teacher who was allegedly raped by a 13-year-old while a 14-year-old held her down. The teaching unions were reported as saying that they believed that this was the first reported case of a suspected rape by a pupil on a teacher in a British school. It now appears highly likely that the case will not be pursued because there is insufficient forensic evidence to support the claim by the victim.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Bill may assist in dealing with this problem: many young lady teachers are intimidated, sexually and in other ways, by boys under the age of 14. It is vital that those teachers are given better support and a better defence, and the Bill will begin to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Couchman: I agree entirely. I am certainly not against the principle of the Bill. I am concerned that the Bill does not provide the right answer to the problem that my hon. Friend highlights. The Southwark example shows just how difficult it would be to prove a case against 10 to 13-year-olds who have previously been deemed incapable in law of rape or similar offences. It also calls into question


the claim that simply changing the definition of such offences would comfort or compensate the victim by providing greater equity under the law.
My second reservation concerns penalties, treatment and deterrents.

Mr. Barry Porter: I have been trying hard to follow my hon. Friend's argument. As I understand it, he is saying that a new crime has been invented. That is not the case under the Bill. The crime —rape—remains the same. If the presumption about boys of 10 to 14 is abolished, people who could not otherwise be charged can be charged. No new crime is involved.
The reason I came into the Chamber today is an unusual one for a Member of Parliament. I came to listen to the arguments being deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), who has now left the Chamber. It would help if people were not accused of using Friday mornings to get rid of later Bills—

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman does it regularly.

Mr. Porter: I seek your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker, from such sedentary interventions. I—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made it plain that I deplore seated interventions. However, if the hon. Gentleman had followed my other precept, that interventions should be short, he would already have sat down.

Mr. Porter: I take the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall act in accord with your wishes, although what is short is a matter of subjectivity.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a matter for me.

Mr. Couchman: That was such a long intervention that I am not entirely sure what the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) was. I suspect that it was to do with whether we have invented a new crime. My hon. Friend said that he came into the Chamber to listen. If he had been here from the beginning of the debate, as I have been, he would have heard a great deal of argument about the definition of rape and about the definition of sexual offences covered by the Bill. I shall try to make progress more swiftly. I hope that the matter will become clear to him.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Couchman: I must resist on this occasion.
The Bill makes no provision for the treatment and punishment of offenders under the proposed new category of offence. It will not deter juveniles from committing such offences simply by changing the definition. Under existing legislation, indecent assault is the strongest charge that can be brought against a juvenile under 14, yet even that is not recognised as a grave crime for punitive purposes. The promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), acknowledged as much in Committee. He said:
Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 gives the courts the power to order the long-term detention of juveniles convicted of grave crimes."—[Official Report, Standing CommitteeF, 17 February 1993; c. 4.]
My hon. Friend has confirmed that point only this morning. The same problem applies to those under 14 who

are charged with murder or with manslaughter, and no one doubts the severity or gravity of those crimes. Hon. Members do not underestimate the gravity of the crime of rape. That is what we are talking about and that is what the Bill is about.
We should look to the judiciary for comment. In an article in The Times on 9 March, Justice Cohen, a designated rape judge, said in reference to the Bill:
It is to be hoped that it will soon become law because a change is long overdue and that consideration will be given to review the powers of the courts to deal adequately with young offenders charged with this offence.
The treatment is inadequate and no remedies are set out in the Bill. It seeks merely to abolish the presumption that a 10 to 13-year-old is incapable of the offence.
Judge Cohen then said:
The new government proposals to set up service training centres for young offenders between the ages of 12–15 will not apply to young rapists unless they are persistent offenders.
If a young 13-year-old commits one rape, he is unlikely to come into the category in which the Government's proposals will hold sway. What will happen to youngsters between the ages of 10 and 12? They will not be covered by the proposed service training centres.
The judge concluded:
There is still no adequate way of dealing with young rapists, especially those under 15. It may be that the time has arrived to rethink our policy of dealing with young sex offenders in order both to help and to punish the offender himself and to deter him and others from offending in this way.
No one disagrees that a change in the law is overdue and should be made soon. However, it would be extremely premature to create a new category of juvenile offences before we have even found adequate ways in which to treat existing categories of offenders.
Furthermore, a definitional change without the necessary provisions for treatment and punishment could undermine the whole purpose of the Bill and provide yet more evidence for the cynics who regard the law as an ass. It would also place judges in an impossible position in sentencing such juvenile offenders.
The whole purpose of the sentencing to which I have referred would be to deter. By itself, the name given to an offence is not a deterrent to those who might commit it. The fear of detection, coupled with the severity of the punishment, is much more likely to deter. The gravity of the charge of rape, for example, does not appear to have acted as any deterrent against adults committing such a crime. There is, however, abundant evidence of the deterrent effect on the victim and the police of the disparity between the crime and the punishment.
In a recent celebrated case, a 15-year-old boy—I accept that he would not be covered by the Bill—raped a fellow pupil for not giving him a birthday kiss. The judge decided that the boy should be placed under a three-year supervision order and should pay £500 to his—

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As has been said several times, we are on Third Reading, but we seem to be hearing about issues that have nothing to do with the Bill and are even now hearing about a case involving someone outside the age range dealt with in the Bill. We have been told several times that Conservative Members are not filibustering, but there is a temptation to think that that is what is happening.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have been listening with attention and I agree that the debate is becoming rather


wide, even for a Third Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) will bear that in mind in his further remarks.

Mr. Coachman: I have nearly finished, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth mentioning that, although the case of the 15-year-old is outside the scope of the Bill, that boy was only a little older than the children that we are considering criminalising under the Bill. I am talking about deterrence, and it is beyond peradventure that the deterrent effect of the sentence passed on that 15-year-old was insufficient. I am glad to say that the case has been reviewed and that a more severe sentence has been imposed. The lack of adequate penalties for such crimes will certainly not assist in deterring potential criminals, but it will certainly deter victims from plucking up the courage to report such crimes and will also deter the police from encouraging the victims to prosecute.
If it is true that young people are more impressionable and can be influenced at an early age, the deterrent factor becomes critical. In dealing with juvenile crime, which the Bill seeks to do, there can be no benefit in altering the legal terminology—which distinction even the courts have difficulty in understanding, let alone a 10-year-old—yet making absolutely no distinction in terms of the severity of the sentence.
No one doubts that the purpose of the Bill should be supported. However, it is both premature and defective in several major respects. First, it seeks to redefine the category of sexual offences which can be committed by boys under 14 without providing measures to deal with these new offences. Secondly, the practical definition of such offences is even more difficult to apply with 10 to 13-year-olds than in dealing with current categories of juvenile offenders. Thirdly, the Bill does not provide any measures to deter or treat those who commit the new category of offences.
The Bill is premature and could be damaging in its present form, providing theory without substance. En my estimation, the Bill has had inadequate time for debate both on Second Reading and in Committee. If it achieves its Third Reading in a few minutes' time, it will go to the other place, where perhaps a judicial mind will be brought to bear on it. It may return to the House for the final day on private Members' Bills on 2 July in a rather better form than the form in which it will leave this place today.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill. The profile of law and order has certainly been raised recently. Only last week I attended a public meeting on the subject in one of the smaller villages in my constituency which was attended by more than 120 people. I was presented with a petition carrying more than 1,000 signatures—a great number for a local petition. Public awareness has been heightened and I know that many members of the public will wish the House to do something about the anomaly that we have been discussing.
The Bill is important to the morale of the public, the police, those who work in the courts and the victims, whose interests it is extremely important to remember. I do not believe that the victims of rape care how old the perpetrator is. Why should they? We need to talk a little

more and care a little more about the victims of crime such as rape, and that is what we are doing today. Their lives have been destroyed at the hands of vicious and callous individuals.
In many cases, those who commit the sickest of crimes know exactly what they are doing and must be held entirely responsible for their actions. There can be no mitigating factors. That is why I welcome the Bill, which will rectify the anomaly in the legal system whereby those under the age of 14 are considered incapable of intercourse and therefore incapable of rape. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) called it a legal myth, and that is exactly what it is. Young people under the age of 14 are very capable of achieving intercourse. The BMA's figures suggest that 2·5 per cent. of youngsters aged 12 or even younger have had a sexual encounter. It is important to remember that.
We cannot draw a line in the sand and state specifically when a person is old enough to achieve penetration. It varies widely from individual to individual. Therefore, in cases of rape, the crime should be judged on the facts: did it happen or did it not happen—was the victim raped or was the victim not raped? The age of the assailant should have no bearing on the issue. How can we tell the victim of rape that those responsible for the crime cannot be tried for the crime that they committed, only for a lesser offence? Have the victims not suffered enough already? Are we to deny them even more of their dignity?
On Second Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill in 1990, the then Minister of State, Home Office, said:
Any hon. Member who has received, as we have received in the Home Office, letters from the parents of a violated child who has gone through the most awful physical pain and, as hon. Members have said, who may suffer persistent mental trauma for many years, will know the pain and the consternation that they feel".—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 608.]
We must pay regard to that.
What kind of message are we sending to those who believe that the law lacks common sense by denying that a 12 or 13-year-old can commit rape? Not acknowledging the seriousness of the crime is tantamount to condoning it. Those responsible may be free to live their lives never understanding the true ramifications of their ghastly crime. Society can no longer afford to set that example. Rape is rape. It is not sexual assault but the most vicious form of degradation known to mankind.
I contacted the Lancashire constabulary to find out how many cases had occurred in my area. The constabulary's figures showed that, in 1992, there were 25 cases of sexual offences committed by males ages 14 or under, two at the age of nine, two at the age of 11, five at the age of 12 and four at the age of 13. Those statistics are extremely important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has already said, the national figures in relation to the sexual offences about which we are concerned today and which we are trying to correct are quite ghastly.
I have several reflections on how we can give the crime the full recognition in the eyes of the law that it deserves. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), for Sutton and Cheam and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) have said, we are simply considering the conviction and not the punishment that must follow the conviction. I hope that hon. Members will regard the Bill as a paving measure along the road to something which must follow—punishment for those convicted of rape.
Under our current legal system, someone under the age of 14 convicted of any crime other than murder cannot be dealt with effectively by the courts. When the Bill reaches the statute book, as I sincerely hope it will, it will still not enable the courts to award harsher punishments than are available now for the lesser offence of sexual assault.
I was comforted by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow about counselling and how the social services can take some offenders into care and secure accommodation. That must be right. However, I look forward to the day when we have legislation to allow the courts to punish properly those who are convicted of rape, irrespective of age. That must be absolutely right.
At the moment, section 53 does not allow the courts to do that and that must be changed as soon as possible. I am aware that the House is clogged with legislation at the moment, but time must be found soon to allow the House to discuss that important legislation which needs to come before the House.
There are wider issues involved in the debate. There is no doubt that the youth of today are maturing faster than at any time in the past. That has been brought about by social pressures and expectations which perhaps did not exist 40 or 50 years ago. Therefore, the Bill must not be seen in splendid isolation.
There must be far more parental guidance in future. I have great reservations about the break-up of the moral fabric of many households. I am concerned about the fact that there are far more family break-ups and more single parents today. However, that does not absolve parents from their responsibility to their children. They should give them as much guidance as possible in all manner of things.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I recognise the impact of television in the home. Television is all pervasive. When we switch it on, we can see all manner of things at all times, particularly now that we have satellite television. I am delighted that the Government have acted against Red Hot Television and that they have been successful so far.
We must also bear in mind that videos are available in the home. They also have an impact on people of all ages. Part of the problem is that, in houses where there is no moral guidance for youngsters of 10, 11 or 12 years of age, they can switch on a television set and can see shocking pictures. If moral guidance from parents is lacking, what is a 10, 11 or 12-year-old to make of what he or she sees on the television? Action must be taken quickly to ensure that we clean up many of the programmes which are transmitted.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck. May we now return to the substance of the Bill?

Mr. Evans: We are saying that people under the age of 14 are capable of rape, and I have been referring to the moral guidance that such people require. I have dealt with the home and I am extremely grateful for the latitude that you have shown, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I believe that it is important that those who are capable of committing the act of rape should receive guidance in the form of sex education in schools. I was therefore delighted to learn that the new draft circular has been

published and sent to schools pointing out that sex education should be taught with a moral framework in relation to family guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made that point.
I believe that schools have a role to play to ensure that we do not send our youngsters on to the streets where they lack moral guidance from their families—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The same strictures apply now as applied a moment ago. If we are talking about the education system, surely the capacity to deal with the subject in hand is an important mark of educational attainment.

Mr. Evans: I am obviously guided by you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In supporting the Bill, I welcome the fact that it will receive its Third Reading and will, I hope, reach the statute book very soon. My constituents are concerned about all forms of crime, whether it be crime to property or to persons. They want the courts to be given the power properly to convict someone between the ages of 10 and 14 who has committed rape for the crime that person has committed and not for a lesser offence. In the not-too-distant future, legislation will, I hope, be introduced to allow the courts to punish properly people who have been convicted of that terrible crime.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I will be brief—

Mr. Michael: I should think so.

Mr. Greenway: I do not think that that kind of remark is called for. It does not help the House to address an extremely serious matter. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) really cares about the issue at all. He seems to want to dismiss any discussion of the subject for whatever reason.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I will not. I do not believe that sedentary interventions of that kind are called for. However, you have given a ruling on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not pursue the matter.
I have been present in the Chamber throughout the Third Reading debate—

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman was not here earlier.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to reprimand the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) unduly. However, I have already said that I deplore seated interventions. I do not expect to have any more, particularly from the Front Benches.

Mr. Greenway: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I explained why I was not present earlier. I will be speedy as I recognise the importance of the next Bill to come before the House. However, the Bill that we are considering now could not be more important at a time when there is serious violence, some of which is sexual, among young people.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill. It is good that we have been able to discuss it this morning. It sets before the nation a very important issue.
I have a reservation which I want to mention, but on which I will not dwell. I believe that there is a chance that the Bill could lead to a lower age of consent than 16. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow considers that, he might understand how I reach that conclusion. If he does not, I could discuss it with him some time.
I believe that lowering the age of consent would be regrettable. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear that in mind as he considers the ramifications of the Bill when it becomes an Act. The criminal law for rape will be applied to those under 14 as a result of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly said that, to be convicted, a boy will need to have understood that what he did was seriously wrong. It is sad that there are boys who do not understand that the sexual offence of rape is rape when they commit it. Of course, that is another matter. Any court or body that deals with such an individual will take careful account of the mental development of the child. That important matter is covered in the Bill.
The Bill will have a serious impact on schools, and that must be welcomed. That aspect has been mentioned and I will develop it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, a large number of children of all ages, including young children, watch explicit sex on television and, as a result, feel moved to try it. Children are under peer pressure at school and feel that they need to succeed, and that may lead to boys being forceful with girls, or even young female teachers. There have been sexual assaults and worse on young teachers. Young children are driven to that by what they see on television and peer group pressure. We need to take careful account of that in law, because children below the age of 14 are affected.
Family doctors or doctors dealing with schools know that children are maturing much earlier. I heard only this week of an 11-year-old boy who is pronounced to have the physical maturity of a fully grown man, although he lacks the mental maturity of a man. He was described as having strong sexual impulses and urges. He has had to be disciplined at school for pulling up girls' skirts and attacking them physically in some way. There has been a danger of his doing more than simply pulling up dresses —he was seen to pull down a girl's pants. That is seriously bad behaviour. In the school involved, it was certainly thought that the boy was likely to be worked up to the point of wanting to have sexual intercourse with the girl involved, because it had happened on a number of occasions with the same girl. That girl will be more protected as a result of the Bill and its provisions, and that is extremely important.
It is more serious to say that boys aged 14 and under can have sexual passions for teachers, rather than simply for other girls. They can attack female teachers in the same way as the boy whom I described attacked a girl of his own age. The matter is becoming more serious in some schools in which discipline has declined. To the Government's credit, they are tackling that sort of indiscipline. The matter needs to be addressed, and my hon. Friend's Bill will help greatly.
The age of puberty is unquestionably coming down all the time—happily, in one sense, because children are better fed and have better welfare. They grow more quickly and they grow bigger and stronger. However, the mental maturity of children is not keeping pace with the more rapid physical maturity that I have described. That is a problem, because children under the age of 14 rarely have

the maturity to control the strong sexual urges that I have described. They need to control those urges. That applies to children not only in schools but in youth clubs and elsewhere.
Children under the age of 14—I was about to use the word extraordinary, but it is not—have a big sense of adventure. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am reducing a serious matter to banality when I use that term. For boys who talk together and get together, it can be a great adventure to seek to have sex with girls of the same age, or girls who are older or younger. In some circumstances, boys can aid and abet each other. That sense of adventure needs to be taken into account, because it is, by definition, an irresponsible attitude on the part of the boys involved.
At the same time, boys under 14 are vulnerable to the sort of peer group pressures that I have described. In all schools, they must be told about the implications of the Bill. The knowledge that they will be liable under criminal law—as they will be—will certainly be a counter-pressure to the adventures and a support to those who are vulnerable to giving way to pressure to behave irresponsibly. Children under 14 need to be protected from themselves. The Bill will assist in that process, and it must be welcomed.

Mr. Wells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) when he described rape as the most vicious form of degradation known to mankind. It is second only to murder in the hierarchy of crimes of which mankind is capable. What is more, it leaves a damaged person—a girl or woman who must live with an appalling and vicious attack. Psychologically, it is difficult for them to recover from such attacks and enjoy normal sexual relations, as they are entitled to do.
Rape is an abhorrent crime about which we are all concerned. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on sharing my concern about that appalling crime, even though it is committed by boys under the age of 14. For that reason, I congratulate him on introducing the Bill.
I sympathise with my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), in particular, and also with my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Ribble Valley and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) who said that the Bill will do nothing to address the increasing incidence of this crime. If my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will forgive me, I believe that this is a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.
The Bill deals with a crime with which it is difficult to come to terms socially and difficult to deal with in a court of law. It is also difficult to deal with in terms of the punishment given. How does one change such behaviour? Does one simply send a young boy to a detention centre, where he will learn about other forms of vicious crime and, in some cases, how to commit rape even more viciously?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham referred to the celebrated case in Wales involving a 15 year-old boy, who was brought before the courts. The sentence he was given was thought to be inadequate and, on appeal, it was increased. What has been the effect on the victim and the boy of having that matter brought before the court in the first place, blazoning it acrosss the national press and then


increasing the punishment meted out to that boy? It certainly increased the humiliation and degradation experienced by the girl.
We are totally incompetent in our attempts to deal with this matter either through the law or social services. That incompetence is even revealed in our understanding of how to stop such behaviour and the provision of proper treatment for it. That is why the Bill should not have been introduced separately from a proper review of the way in which society, the law and the corrective services deal with the offence.
My hon. Friends who are lawyers and my hon. Friend the Minister, who is advised by lawyers, tell me that the Bill deals only with the issue of rape. It gets over a hurdle, because, under current criminal law, we cannot accuse a 14-year-old boy or a younger one of rape, as he is considered incapable of sexual intercourse. That may be the narrow legal interpretation, but a problem arises because it is a criminal offence to have sexual intercourse below the age of 16. Under the current law as I understand it, one cannot bring a criminal charge against a boy below the age of 14 for having unlawful sex below the age of 16, because he is deemed incapable of having sexual intercourse. As a result of the Bill, that will no longer be so. A boy under the age of 14 could be brought before the courts for having unlawful sex below the age of 16 and even below the age of 14. That is my understanding of the Bill, but its other effects are probably hidden from the House as we rush it onto the statute book.

Mr. Hayes: It is currently against the law for people under the age of 16 to have sex. Until the Bill is passed, it is not presumed that a person under the age of 16 has the capacity for intercourse, full penetration. In the highly unlikely event of a prosecution being brought under the current law, a person under the age of 14, who has had full penetrative sex, being presumed incapable of that act under existing law, would be charged with indecent assault. I accept that such a situation is highly unlikely, but, in theory, that person would still be charged with a criminal offence. The Bill, therefore, does not criminalise anyone; it deals with the charge, nothing more.

Mr. Wells: As a layman, I am grateful for that explanation from my hon. Friend, who is learned because he is a lawyer. I am not sure whether that is the effect of the law, however, although I must accept his advice and that of the Minister that that is the case. I hope that it is; if it is not, it will result in many youngsters who participate in sexual activities being brought before the courts of this country. That is not the right way to deal with such matters, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow agrees—[Interruption.]
I shall bring my remarks to a close as I can hear sedentary interruptions from the Opposition spokesmen and I do not wish to delay the House. The Bill should have been produced in the context of the problem of under-age rape and sexual offences, and provided for the sensible treatment of those who commit them to enable them to grow up as responsible humans who respect others and are capable of proper and enjoyable sex in a loving and affectionate relationship.

Mr. Jack: We have had an interesting and extensive debate on many of the issues covered by the Bill. I am pleased that the Bill has reached Third Reading in an unamended form, for which we should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes). I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill and steering it through its various stages through the House. Nothing in the House is ever easy or straightforward, as today's debate has clearly illustrated.
The Government fully support the Bill, which corrects a long-standing absurdity in the law. On a note of apology, I wish that the Government had had time in their legislative timetable to introduce the Bill, but, sadly, they were unable to do so. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow used his time as a private Member to introduce the legislation. Although there have been some interesting criticisms of the Bill, the general thrust of today's debate has been in support of the measure.
It is worth recording how the Bill came to be introduced, and to address one or two of the issues raised in the debate. When the subject was raised in the context of a previous private Member's Bill, it was debated thoroughly, in the round, with a number of other issues relating to sexual offences. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who led for the Opposition, said:
Such a scandalous situation should not exist in modern law."—[Official Report, 16 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 599.]
Those were wise and correct words, and have clearly influenced the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow.
Both those views were supported by the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee, which considered the matter in considerable depth. It stated clearly:
Under the present law … a boy under 14 cannot be convicted of … rape or any other offence of vaginal or anal intercourse because he is conclusively presumed at common law incapable of sexual intercourse. In paragraph 27 of our working paper we discussed the common law presumption and provisionally concluded that it should be abolished. All who commented on the issue agreed with us. Accordingly we now recommend that presumption be abolished.
That was a clear, unequivocal and ringing endorsement for the measures that lie at the centre of the unamended Bill.
If hon. Members have any doubt that the issue was not considered in considerable depth, they should look at paragraph 27 of the report, which states:
If that recommendation"—
to which I referred—
was accepted, the prosecution would, of course, have to prove as in all cases involving defendants under 14 that the boy knew that he was doing wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) mentioned that issue. He was talking about differentials of proof in terms of adult crime where, at present, the alternative might be indecent assault. Clearly, with all criminal charges different levels of proof have to be achieved. Those levels are to protect those accused of crime who may have evidence to offer to the contrary. Now, the same different sorts of proof are introduced by this proposal.
Several hon. Members supporting the Bill talked about punishment and how these sexual crimes are dealt with. I repeat what I said in the Standing Committee: we understand these concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke with passion about the seriousness and nastiness of rape—he was right to use


such language. Equally, however, we have taken up the point made by other hon. Members and we are looking in the round at the scope and coverage of section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We understand the anxieties about the restrictions that it imposes on the courts, particularly as to the uses of custody. These matters take time to consider, but we are looking carefully at them.
What are the alternatives? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) came near to teasing out some of the important issues that lie behind this subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) pertinently commented on the backgrounds from which young men accused of this nasty crime may come. She mentioned that they may themselves have been sexually or physically abused.
I should like to offer the House a reassurance. The fact that the Bill will enable a person to be charged with what he has actually done—raping someone—must mean a great deal to the victim of the offence. Under current law, the courts will be able to award a sentence of supervision, which is not an easy option. It goes to the very heart of offending behaviour. It matters not whether a person is dealt with in the community or by means of custody--the problem remains: we need to get to the reasons why he committed the act of rape, with which this measure deals. Supervision, day in day out--it can be as frequent as necessary—goes, as I say, to the heart of sexual behaviour. I have seen work in the probation service that shows what can be done to turn people away from offending behaviour.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend saying that the very fact that the boy concerned may be found guilty of an offence will have a dramatic effect on the behaviour of other boys? They must be educated to know that they can be brought to book if they commit sexual offences of the kind that the Bill would prohibit.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend underlines my point. A proper charge can now be brought for what someone has done, and it is a serious charge. The measure will also focus the minds of those who will be responsible for the punishment of the offender and, and even under existing law, that means that the right punishment can be devised for the crime. At least the victim, who must never be forgotten, will know that a person has been convicted of an offence. Indecent assault is a lesser charge—not the right charge for a crime as serious as rape.

Mr. Cohen: I hear what the Minister says about the Government supporting the Bill. Many hon. Members support it, too, but he must acknowledge that it deals with only one aspect of the law governing rape. That law needs reform right across the board, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) has said. Have the Government any plans to examine all the laws covering rape, including the victim compensation aspects?

Mr. Jack: I do not want to trespass beyond the boundaries of what we are discussing today. The hon. Gentleman will know of my personal commitment to, and interest in, matters connected with domestic violence, which can include rape. There is much good work to be done on that. He will also know of recent Court of Appeal

judgments that deal with rape in the context of marriage. Doubtless there is more work to be done, and I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point.
Before I was interrupted, I was about to pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). He spoke about psychological damage to victims. The word "psychological" was appropriate and fits the point that I made about the nature of the supervision order and what can be done about offending behaviour. My hon. Friend was right to mention that and I look forward to his wider comments on juvenile crime in his Adjournment debate.
I covered the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham about differential evidence. What he said emphasises the importance of this narrow Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley takes a special interest in these matters and I thank him for his contribution.
The Bill is narrowly drawn, but it is important. It deals with a serious crime and enables the proper charge to be brought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the offence is not imaginary but real. People are presently committing rape and, if they are below the age of 14, they can be charged only with indecent assault. The Bill deals with that matter and I whole-heartedly endorse it.

Mr. Michael: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on doing what the Government should have done. In view of the wide nature of the debate, we should remind ourselves that the Bill simply abolishes the nonsensical presumption of the criminal law that a boy under the age of 14 cannot be capable of sexual intercourse. That is the simple issue and it is surprising that there has been such a wide-ranging debate.
The Minister was generous enough to acknowledge that the Government should have undertaken this measure. There was an opportunity to do that in this year's Criminal Justice Bill. Many issues contained in current private Member's Bills could have been dealt with in that Bill, thus saving the time of the House. The Bill is important and useful and it is no fault of its promoter, the hon. Member for Harlow, that in some ways the debate has been widened and misused. It must have been frustrating for the hon. Gentleman to have to reduce his contribution because, undoubtedly, he would have liked to expand on knowledge of the subject.
I say to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), or I would if he were still in the Chamber, that it may be in order but it harms the reputation of the House for hon. Members to wander in halfway through the morning and expect to be able to speak at length. Conservative Members widened the debate into all sorts of matters which, although important, are not germane to the Bill. I especially noted those hon. Members who sought to widen it into juvenile justice generally by using the typical Conservative approach, which is to talk tough, shout loudly and do nothing.
Crime figures published this week show that the Government have presided over an increase in crime of well over 120 per cent. In view of that, I am surprised at the cheek of Conservative Members in trying to widen the debate. However, there will be all-party support if they are serious and if next week they support such measures as the


Bail (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien).
If Conservative Members are serious, they will press the Government for a speed-up in the criminal justice system, especially in relation to young people, and for an increase in the resources for prevention and earlier intervention. We are paying a sort of crime tax for the Government's failure in those respects. I mention them because they have been raised in the debate, although they seem to fall outside the scope of the Bill. The debate contained about 30 minutes of illumination from each side, but otherwise swallowed time that the House could have used to debate the Medicines Information Bill. Hon. Members who have spoken at length will have to answer to their consciences and to the British people for perpetuating secrecy in the pharmaceutical industry. They know what they have done in denying protection to the British public in respect of drugs and medicines. They have done that with the collusion, if not the encouragement, of the Government Whips.
The Bill does not create perfection in law, but Labour has supported the Bill from the beginning because it puts right one specific anomaly in the law. We have not let it pass without thought, but have given the Bill the consideration that its serious subject matter deserves—although we have not sought to waste the time of the House, having recognised that the Bill encapsulates simple common sense, which I commend to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Medicines Information Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 3

RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION

'.—(1) Where any information is made available to any person or organisation under this Act, that person or organisation must not disclose that information without the written consent of the licensing authority.

(2) A person who without reasonable excuse contravenes, or causes or allows the contravention of, subsection (1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(3) Section 124 of the 1968 Act shall apply in relation to an offence under this section as it applies in relation to an offence under that Act.

(4) Where a person or organisation requests consent under subsection (1) above the licensing authority may—

(a) make a reasonable charge, not exceeding the cost of determining the request;
(b) give consent on such terms as the authority consider appropriate.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend begins his remarks, I want to declare my interest to the House as an adviser to a pharmaceutical company. Insinuating sedentary remarks have been made about that today. I make it clear to the House, particularly in respect of press reports that have appeared in recent days, that I advise Pfizer in Kent, which is a major pharmaceutical company. That is in the Register of Members' Interests. It has also been drawn to the attention of the House—and this, too, has appeared in the press—that I advise the Gin and Vodka Association of Great Britain, although that is not germane to this debate. I should like that declaration on record, so that no further sedentary insinuations will be made by members of the Labour Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter to which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred was not only the subject of sedentary interventions but was raised officially during all stages of the Bill. I refer to the hon. Gentleman's involvement with a company that has objected to the Bill and lobbied against it, and his meetings with that company in respect of the Bill. We have raised serious objections about the hon. Gentleman's connections with the company, and his ability—as a paid adviser —to filibuster and try to destroy the Bill. It is not a question of impugning the hon. Gentleman's character —it is a fact that is the case.

Mr. Couchman: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) declared his interest and used the appropriate method dictated by the House. The hon. Gentleman's declaration is now firmly on the record.

Mr. Waterson: New clause 3 and others, and amendments in my name, make a genuine attempt to


improve the Bill. I have no formal interest to declare in these proceedings, but, in view of the ill-tempered and ill-advised interventions, sedentary and otherwise, made by Opposition Members, I will make two points clear. I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency the northern European headquarters of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, which is one of the most successful and innovative of the pharmaceutical giants in this country. Also, as a lawyer myself, I have an interest in good law and good legislation.I do not want this or any other Bill to leave the House with loose ends or with provisions that would be difficult if not impossible to interpret or enforce.

Mr. Giles Radice: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who drafted his new clause?

Mr. Waterson: Although I received a little research assistance, the authorship of the new clause is mine and I am delighted to commend it to the House. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it does not have the intended effect, I shall be delighted to hear from him, but I will take any credit and any blame for the wording of new clasue 3 and of my other new clauses and amendments.
I hope that new clause 3 will command the agreement of right hon. and hon. Member in all parts of the House.I believe that it is accepted, including by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), that, somewhere along the line, some restriction must be placed on the information to be supplied and the circumstances in which it is to be supplied. Any legitimate debate that there may be will be about where one is to draw the line—a point which I will develop at greater length later.
The new clause would make it an offence for people who had successfully applied for information under the Act to make copies of the information without the permission of the licensing authority. It also draws in the provisions of section 124 of the Medicines Act 1968, which takes account of offences involving corporate entities. The clause makes it possible for the licensing authority to charge for copies of infonnation, whether the authority supplies that information directly or it is supplied by a third party.
Without such a clause, the licensing authority would find it harder to offset the cost of preparing the information. If the licensing authority receives less money than it should from applicants for information, that cost will ultimately fall on the pharmaceutical industry through licence fees. It wil be part of the leitmotiv of my comments on other amendments and new clauses that that is something which I wish to try to avoid, wherever possible.
I consider the new clause to be essential if we are to ensure that applicants for information can be charged a reasonable amount for copies from any source. It is a perfectly reasonable provision. It is not out of line with the usual approach in such a situation to books and magazines, for example, where copyright applies. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending what I hope is an uncontroversial new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION

'.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no information shall be made available under this Act which would or might identify or lead to the identification of—


(a) any individual; or
(b) the place at which any test involving the administration of a medicinal product to an animal has been carried out.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, the licensing authority shall not make any information available under this Act if they consider that to do so would—

(a) involve the disclosure of a formula, process, device or invention of commercial value; or
(b) make it more difficult for the holder of a product licence in respect of a product to which the information relates to compete with other persons; or
(c) impair the ability of the licensing authority thereafter to obtain similar information;

but no information contained in or accompanying an application for a product licence shall be withheld on the ground that paragraph (a) or (b) above applies unless it is designated under subsection (3) below.

(3) An application for a product licence under section 16 of the 1968 Act shall designate the information contained in or accompanying the application to which, in the opinion of the applicant, subsection (2) (a) or (b) above applies.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the making available under this Act of information which has been published in the United Kingdom.

(5) Where the licensing authority consider that this section requires them to refuse any request under this Act, they shall so inform the person making the request.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 21, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
`animal" has the same meaning as in the 1968 Act;'.
No. 8, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 6 to 37.

Mr. Waterson: This is a more substantial proposed change to the Bill, and I shall speak at greater length on the intent and proposed effect of the new clause. I have moved the new clause because I am not happy about the proposed protection for commercial information and for individuals under clause 4, as drafted. My philosophy, as I have already said, is to keep any extra burden on the pharmaceutical industry to the minimum.
One of the first things that the new clause does is to prevent information from being revealed about any individual. That seems to me to be eminently fair and sensible. For some reason, the Bill, as drafted, allows individuals to be identified if they have given permission. I do not see why that is necessary. Information of the kind with which the Bill deals should not mean that individuals can be identified.
I see no point in people wandering throughout the country knocking on doors and demanding the signature of someone who might have taken part in a clinical trial, simply in order that their name can be made public. In both this and other contexts, the problem in this country is keeping people's names out of publication rather than inventing new ways of identifying them. My new clause will ensure that individuals are protected from identification.
As to the provision relating to experiments on animals, I hope that its reasoning is reasonably predictable. I refer to subsection (1)(b) which refers to
the place at which any test involving the administration of a medicinal product to an animal has been carried out.
In recent years, there have been examples of the activities of animal rights activists who have caused destruction to property, particularly to property where they believe that


experiments on animals of a certain kind are being carried out. That is another reasonable safeguard to include in the Bill.

Mr. Radice: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to look at amendment No. 104 which, after consultation with the industry, deals with precisely the question that he has just raised?

Mr. Waterson: New clause 4 offers clearer protection of commercial information than the original clause. In a sense, the principle is already accepted in the Bill. I do not believe, with the greatest respect, that the hon. Member for Durham, North has placed sufficient importance on the need to protect commercial information. The original clause 4, which contained a requirement for all safety and efficacy information to be published, was evidence of that. The hon. Member was forced to withdraw the clause in the face of universal condemnation from the pharmaceutical industry.

1 pm

Mr. Radice: That is a somewhat churlish way of putting it. I dropped the clause. I was not forced to do so; I offered to do it.

Mr. Waterson: I should not like to be thought of as being churlish, so I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation.
There is no doubt that the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is opposed to the underlying purpose of the Bill. It argues that it would lead to commercially valuable information being disclosed. It claims that companies will seek licences in Europe, not Britain, as the new Europewide licensing system comes in under the single market, thus denying the NHS access to approved medicine.

Ms Liz Lynne: The hon. Gentleman said that the British pharmaceutical industry opposed the Bill. As the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has already said, discussions were held with the British pharmaceutical industry, after which clauses 4 and 5 were deleted. The hon. Member for Durham, North has already mentioned amendments Nos. 104 and 105, which propose the same as the new clause. Glaxo was telephoned this morning and asked whether it opposed the Bill. It said that its position had not changed. We were led to believe that, as long as we withdrew clauses 4 and 5, the British pharmaceutical industry would be happy with the Bill. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that the industry is totally opposed to the Bill is slightly misleading. The industry does not seem to know whether it is for or against the Bill: it says one thing to myself and the hon. Member for Durham, North and another to Ministers.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that lengthy intervention. The point that I think I just made was that the association opposed the underlying principle of the Bill. I was careful to use the phrase, "underlying principle". There is nothing wrong in the association holding discussions on detail with Opposition Members, as it has throughout the passage of the Bill, as a damage-limitation exercise, but no Opposition Member is in a position to say that the pharmaceutical industry or the

association favours the Bill, or at least the underlying principle. What the association has done quite properly —this is the way things are in the real world—is hold discussions with hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Durham, North, in which, no doubt, it attempted better to inform the hon. Gentleman and to persuade him of the damage of some of the Bill's provisions. In some of the discussions, its arguments prevailed, in others perhaps not.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Has not the ABPI said that it is in favour, in general terms, of providing better information on medicines to doctors and patients—a view which we all share? In February, it said that the Bill is not needed because of the amount of information that is already available. It also said that the Bill presents a threat to the continued viability of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. Surely that is the reality of the ABPI's approach, which is perfectly clear.

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend puts the point succinctly. The association has two basic answers to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The first is that a great deal of information is currently available from the industry about particular drugs. The second is what I call the level playing field problem, which I shall develop in much more detail in a moment. We are talking about multinational companies that operate worldwide, and especially Europewide. Their supreme difficulty with the Bill is that it may put them at a competitive disadvantage in this country.

Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmonds): One of the points that has come to light in my discussions with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry is the fact that there are negotiations for a European Communitywide licensing authority and until that comes about, pharmaceutical companies operating here believe that the move would be unilateral and to their disadvantage.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I shall develop that issue later, but I now wish to continue what I was saying before the hon. Member for Rochdale intervened.
The association has argued that the Bill would be a "charter for foreign copyists" of drugs and for counterfeiters which, as we know, pose a threat to this industry and to many others.

Mr. Couchman: I did not intervene when my hon. Friend was moving new clause 3 which deals with the passing on of information. Even with the penalties prescribed under new clause 3, the passing on of information causes only a comparatively minor fear to companies if they have considerable commercial interest in getting hold of information that would be available under the Bill.

Mr. Waterson: I believe that during the second world war a poster appeared at times saying, "Loose talk costs lives". In this case, loose talk could cost jobs and money. In high-tech industries, and especially in the pharmaceutical industry, information is power and money, and many people have an interest in getting their hands on information and on formulas for new developments or prospects of new developments. Companies can rise or fall on the fortunes of a particular new product.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No, I shall not give way now, because I must make some progress. I may allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene later.
I was trying to conclude my point that the industry itself has warned that future investment could go elsewhere in Europe, thus damaging job prospects in this country. As we know, Britain has a £1.2 billion trade surplus in pharmaceuticals.
The concerns of the pharceutical industry were noted in particular by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on Second Reading. He said:
The Government are committed to making more information available.
Despite some of the things that the hon. Member for Durham, North has said inside and outside the House, I believe that that basic principle still stands. The Minister continued:
It must be acknowledged., however, that the pharmaceutical industry sends an enormous amount of commercially sensitive data to the licensing authority. This has been protected by the requirements of the Medicines Act and by the common law presumption that confidentiality would be maintained. Information on medicinal products is potentially highly sensitive commercially and there is a risk that without adequate safeguards the provision of public information could be seriously abused.
The pharmaceutical industry is concerned about the commercial sensitivity of the data that it provides and about the additional burden that the Bill could place on it and the extent to which it would be taking the United Kingdom out of line with other member states. This is a particular crucial issue at a time when new EC licensing systems are in the process of being agreed".—[Official Report, 15 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1225]

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill would be a dangerous precedent for United Kingdom companies. Although Glaxo used the American Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about Smith Kline Beecham, one of the foremost companies in the world, that company has not been affected. The Medicines Control Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Government's own bodies, have used the American Freedom of Information Act to look into companies such as Fisons. Pfizer, a company which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) is paid to represent here, has also used the legislation to seek information about Glaxo, a British company. No one suggests that Pfizer's action has led to a deterioration in Glaxo's financial or trading position either here or in the United States.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Waterstone.

Mr. Waterson: If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is Waterson, not Waterstone. Unfortunately, I am not: the owner of a chain of bookshops. There we are, we cannot have everything in this life.
I am not here to defend the working of the United States Freedom of Information Act, although it is worth a debate in itself.

Mr. McCartney: Answer the question.

Mr. Waterson: I will answer the question. There are serious flaws in the Act's workings. It is primarily directed at information generated by Government agencies in the United States, so it does not assist the hon. Gentleman's argument. The examples the hon. Gentleman give show

that there is a great hunger among commercial organisations in pharmaceuticals to get their hands on information about their competitors and rivals. That is the position I seek to address in the new clause.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the United States, it is perfectly possible by Government order —by presidential decree—to prevent information from being made available by pharmaceutical industries to protect their commercial interests? That is exactly what happens in practice.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that intervention.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is not it true that under the United States Freedom of Information Act, the information required is, as my hon. Friend has said, information generated by Government agencies? The Act does not oblige the Government to make public details of medicinal products submitted by pharmaceutical companies. The Bill's proposals for British law are entirely different from the Freedom of Information Act in the United States.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that intervention. On the basis that that is the correct position, it is an effective answer.

Ms Lynne: My information leads me to believe that the intervention by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was entirely wrong. The United States legislation is very similar to the Bill.

Mr. Waterson: I hope that I shall be forgiven for pressing on. My hon. Friend the Minister may wish to arbitrate on the point later.
The pharmaceutical industry is important to this country and that is why we must get the Bill absolutely right—hence the debate today. It has been said more than once that there are 90,000 jobs in the United Kingdom that are dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. I have already mentioned Rhone-Poulenc Rorer which is the largest private employer in Eastbourne and very pleased we are to have it there. I mentioned the £1·2 billion trade surplus.
We all know the difficulties involved in developing new products. The pharmaceutical industry is a highly competitive, high-tech industry. It can take up to 12 years to develop, to finalise and to test the safety of a new drug, at a cost of up to £150 million. There are particular difficulties, in which I have been involved, if a patent lasts only for 20 years. That leaves a short time for the commercial exploitation of the product and a short time in which to recoup the enormous investment in research and development.
Some £550 million worth of capital investment was made by the industry in 1990. It has about £3 billion worth of exports, making it the second largest contributor to our balance of payments. About £1 billion is invested in research and development, which represents a staggering 10 per cent. of all British manufacturing investment in research and development as a whole. In short, the pharmaceuticals industry is a major British success story.
I have already referred to the European dimension., which was touched on by the Minister on Second Reading. Let me quote from the remarks of the hon. Member for Durham, North in Committee:
"everybody accepts that there will be a European directive which will lay down rules for openness across the European Community … all its details have not yet been finalised." The hon. Gentleman conceded that the Bill would be in advance of legislation in one or two other EC countries. He went on
Why not lead other EC countries on the issue of openness?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 February 1993, c. 33.]
I do not believe that those quotations are in any sense out of context.
That is a legitimate and respectable point of view, but it is not the point of view which I take. I think that I am right in saying that, with the exception of Denmark, we would be the only EC country to take the bold step envisaged in the Bill unilaterally. The result would be that we would be out in front of our EC competitors, and perhaps the hon. Member for Durham, North still thinks that that is something to be applauded. I do not believe that it would be good news for the British pharmaceutical industry.

Mr. Couchman: Does my hon. Friend agree that to saddle the British industry with a burden with which our European competitors are not saddled will prejudice Britain's chances as a site for the location of new manufacturing?

Mr. Radice: That is a total red herring.

Mr. Couchman: Perhaps you would protect me against sedentary interventions, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
That will predicate against British locations for new manufacturing operations by the pharmaceutical industry, and it is manufacturing which produces the trade balance surplus that is so important to us. There is at present a huge overcapacity of manufacturing capacity in Europe. There will be a rationalisation, and we should do nothing to prejudice our position.

Mr. Waterson: I could not agree more. Manufacturing not only produces the trade surplus; it also produces jobs in constituencies such as mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) is absolutely right to refer to the overall problem of overcapacity in Europe. Coupled with that, the companies involved are almost invariably true multinationals, which move backwards and forwards across frontiers with considerable ease. Some of them have plants all over Europe or even all over the world:

Mr. Radice: Exactly.

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Exactly." It seems that we start from the same premise but reach diametrically opposed conclusions. My conclusion is that, there is an ever-present danger that, if we do anything to rock the boat—to give other countries in Europe any kind of competitive edge in pharmaceuticals—the companies will vote with their feet or with their investment.

Mr. Spring: May I refer to one of myths surrounding this subject? Although there is a Freedom of Information Act in Denmark, its application is nothing like what is proposed in the Bill. The commercial sensitivity provisions are restrictive in Denmark to protect the pharmaceuticals

industry there. It is not true that it is open season for information in Denmark, although—uniquely in the EC —that country has a Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Waterson: Let me continue on the subject of the European dimension. The expression "a level playing field" is an overused Euro-analogy, but it has some relevance in this connection.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has gone to great lengths to negotiate an opt-out for this country on the social chapter. That means that companies in this and other sectors, like tourism which is also important for my constituency, will not be saddled with yet another layer of bureaucracy and associated costs. That will assist them to compete with other firms in the European Community. I should like to believe that this Government's initiative on deregulation has begun to infect all member states and that we are seeing a major turnround in the approach to bureaucracy and over-regulation.
I believe that the Bill would unilaterally impose a requirement on this country which would increase regulation and costs to industry. In some respects, it could negate the benefits of the opt-out on the social chapter for pharmaceutical companies.
The Government are in the business of maintaining and enhancing the competitive edge of British companies in Europe. That does not mean that we are not committed to the European ideal. However, we want to see our companies do well in terms of selling our products in the Community and also in terms of attracting inward investment from the Community and from further afield from countries such as Japan and the United States.
To return to what the pharmaceutical industry is saying now, I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North saw the letter to the British Medical Journal in March which states that there is no need for the Bill. Mr. John Griffin of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry argued in the letter that it is the licensing agencies, and not the drug companies, which have been responsible for the secrecy surrounding licensing decisions. He said that EC directive 92/27/EEC, which is supported by the pharmaceutical industry,
will require all European licensing agencies to provide … a summary basis of approval' on granting a licence for a new medicine.
At least one of my hon. Friends has said that a vast array of information is already available through the industry. The association claims that the objective of the hon. Member for Durham, North of providing more and better information to patients will be met by the publication by the industry next year of a compendium of user-friendly patient information leaflets covering more than 1,000 products.

Mr. Radice: Mr. Griffin wrote that letter before the Committee stage of the Bill. To that extent, it is out of date and he was kind enough to let me apologise for the fact that the letter in the BMJ took the unamended version of the Bill as its basis.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful for that. I should have called Mr. Griffin "Dr. Griffin" and I apologise for that. I look forward to a letter in the BMJ from Dr. Griffin taking a diametrically different view of the Bill.
We are stepping into a very difficult area when we pass this kind of legislation. The high-tech development of intellectual property is a very delicate area. If the Bill is not


absolutely right—and that is what we are here to ensure today—there will be a real danger that properly patented rights, in which a particular company may have invested millions of pounds, could be rendered worthless.
Subsection (2)(a) is the heart of the new clause. It refers to
the disclosure of a formula, process, device or invention of commercial value;".
That is the nub of the clause and it is an important issue. It is designed to protect information of sensitive commercial value because there is a perceived danger of abuse and commercial exploitation by competitors.
If the Bill were to reach the statute book in its present form, why should companies make product licence applications to the United Kingdom Medicines Control Agency? Who will bear the costs of the provisions in the Bill if not the pharmaceutical industry? Is it right to place extra burdens on a successful and competitive international business of this kind?
We badly need a good, constructive, on-going dialogue with the pharmaceutical industry. We have a major bone of contention as part of the Government's efforts to control the ever-escalating NHS drugs bill. We have a bone of contention in the shape of the proposed extension of the limited list. Of course, there are arguments on both sides, but it can have a crucial effect on employment in certain parts of the United Kingdom. Perhaps on another occasion I shall have more to say to my hon. Friend the Minister on that topic—

Mr. Couchman: I should have something to say as well.

Mr. Waterson: —despite the encouragement otherwise of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham.
I shall add some additional points of explanation, which I hope will be fairly obvious, with regard to the wording of the new clause. First, the Bill does not seem to appreciate the basic point that information submitted by companies to help with the licensing process does not belong to the Government. As I explained earlier, it is simply held by the Government on a privileged and confidential basis to help them to make good decisions —and the right decisions—about the licensing of medicines.
Precisely because it is company information, it is entirely right and appropriate that companies should be involved in the process of making it available to the public. Companies should retain some element of control over the dissemination of information, so in new clause 4 I place the onus on them to designate what information in the license applications is commercially sensitive. That reflects the procedure in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act where a presidential order requires agencies to ask companies to identify information that should not be released. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCarthy) wishes to intervene to disagree with that.

Mr. McCartney: I shall make my own speech in my own time, thank you.

Mr. Waterson: I thought I would give the hon. Member the opportunity.

Mr. Radice: I shall say something about the Americans later.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Waterson: The clause also makes it clear that final decisions about what information should be disclosed will rest with Ministers. We should not create a whole new area of expenditure on legal costs by allowing interminable challenges and appeals in the courts. I say that as a lawyer. At the end of the day, we pay Ministers to make decisions. When companies have said what information should or should not be made public, it is entirely appropriate that the final decision should be taken by Ministers.
I have included a provision that information should not be protected if it has already been published in the United Kingdom. It would be ludicrous if the Bill prevented Ministers from disclosing information, even if it had been published in full in a national newspaper.
New clause 4 is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and to make it more workable and more reasonable. Above all, it will protect the sort of unwanted and unintentional damage that could be done by the Bill. I commend the new clause to the House and hope that I have explained its intention.

Mr. Radice: Mr. Morris, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I apologise for calling you Mr. Morris; it is too much of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. New clause 4 goes to the heart of the debate between the Government, those who support the Bill—they are in the majority, especially on a free vote—and the industry because it raises the issue of confidentiality and commercial secrets. They are legitimate concerns of the industry which we have been trying to meet and deal with throughout the passage of the Bill.
Let us look at new clause 4 against the background of our deletion of clauses 4 and 5 in Committee. Clause 4 is fairly tightly defined and excludes all legitimate areas of commercial secrets and, taking into account my amendments Nos. 104 and 105, the new clause is unnecessary.
The Bill has considerable all-party support—it was sponsored by hon. Members from all parties—and it could not have got through the Committee without the support of Conservative Members. There were certain moments in Committee when the only Conservative Member who voted against a specific amendment or clause was the Minister. It was rightly thought that I tried to meet most of the legitimate concerns expressed. I have studied the Division records and I know that the majority of Conservative Members came out in support for the Bill. I accept that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) may have abstained on most votes, but he gave us his support on one occasion. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) certainly gave the Bill valuable and useful support throughout the Committee. I wish to make it clear, therefore, that the Bill would not have reached the House today without the support of Conservative Members. It is an all-party Bill, with all-party support.
1.30 pm
I made it clear on Second Reading, which was unopposed, that I should be happy to talk to representatives of the industry about any of its concerns. Before and after the Committee stage, I met representatives of the British Pharma Group, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Upjohns, Schwering and the National Office of Animal Health—NOAH. I have


taken a constructive and responsible attitude throughout the passage of the Bill and I do not believe that anyone could pretend otherwise.
I know that the briefing that has been supplied by the Government to hon. Members, which I was fortunate to glance at, claims that the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association expressed its opposition to the Bill in a letter to the Secretary of State for Health, which is quoted in that briefing. That letter was written before the Committee stage and its attack was based on clauses 4 and 5, which have now been deleted. I do not want that argument to be used against the Bill in its present form.
Hon. Members should note that since the Committee stage a number of people have come out in support of the Bill, including Sir William Asscher, the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which advises the licensing authority. NOAH, which speaks for the veterinary medicines industry, has also placed on record its support for the Bill, as amended.
It is true that the British Pharma Group has displayed considerable ambivalence to the Bill. It said that it could live with clauses 2 and 3 if the original clauses 4 and 5 were deleted. Now that that has happened, however, it is still doubtful about the Bill. It believes that we should wait for European legislation—it wants to be virtuous, but not yet, Lord. The same is probably true of the ABPI. It accepts that there must be legislation along the lines of the Bill, but not just yet. Why should those organisations be frightened of it?
There has been much talk about the United States. We were fortunate enough to have a representative of the Food and Drug Administration at a meeting yesterday in the House of Commons in support of the Bill. It was clear, first, that our model was the same as theirs. It was also clear that the American industry has gained considerable advances, not in finding out rivals' commercial secrets—an old canard—but in discovering factors such as adverse drug reactions and how the summary basis of approval should be approached. Such information is extremely useful. I am stating what the FDA representative said yesterday.

Lady Olga Maitland: The idea seems to be that, in the United States, the Freedom of Information Act is the great panacea for all problems and grants freedom to all. However, the United States Government can refuse to disclose information that would harm the privacy of an individual or the proprietary interests of a business. Such provision goes much wider than mere trade secrets. They can release information generated through Government agencies.

Mr. Radice: They release the summary basis of approval, which is the main aim of my Bill. In some respects, they reveal more than we do. They reveal the raw material of the adverse drug reactions, whereas we are merely suggesting that we should reveal a summary, and we have talked to the industry about that. Therefore, the American model is in advance of the model proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Spring: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the FDA has a relationship with individual drug companies, and the onus is on the drug companies to decide what information they should supply and on what basis they should protect their own commercial interests. The onus is on the pharmaceutical companies to decide

which information they regard as important for their own commercial survival. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is not accurately representing the relationship between the FDA and private pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Radice: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the tightly defined list, both with the FDA and in the Bill, of matters that can be revealed. It does not cover commercial interests, which are specifically excluded under clause 4. I suggest that one or two hon. Members may not be sufficiently familiar with the Bill. I do not blame them for that, as they were not present in Committee and may have been alerted to the contents of the Bill only recently.

Mr. Waterson: I was not a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill as I was engaged in discussing a major piece of legislation in another Standing Committee, but I have carefully read the Committee proceedings. That was not an arduous task as the Committee sat only twice and on each occasion rose well before 1 pm. Therefore, I feel that I know as much about the Committee stage as any of the members of the Committee.

Mr. Radice: I am glad that the hon. Member read our deliberations—

Mr. McCartney: There was agreement.

Mr. Radice: As my hon. Friend said, there was considerable agreement—with the exception of the Minister—in Committee, which was the good thing about it.

Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly how many Conservative Members supported the Bill? As I understand the Bill, only one of our number supported it, and it seems to be slightly misleading to say that the Bill has all-party support.

Mr. Radice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Standing Committees must have a Conservative majority. I had the support of the majority of the Conservatives on the Committee for the clauses that were amended—I did not have the Minister's support, however, or the support of the hon. Member for Beckenham who, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, had to abstain. The hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) supported me. True, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) had a prior engagement in the United States. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam supported us. I was surprised that even the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) started to support us towards the end—perhaps he has been told to. The hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts) supported us, too. It can be seen that I invited quite a lot of distinguished Conservative Members to serve on the Committee. The Bill's promoter does not, of course, do the selecting, but he has to suggest names. I suggested those names, with the results that I have described. I hope therefore that no one will say that the Bill does not have considerable support.

Mr. Piers Merchant: I do not want to pursue the point too far, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman is glossing over the degree of the differences between us. He is in danger of muddling two separate arguments—one about the principle, the other about the practical applications of the Bill. Although there is widespread


support for and agreement with the principle and objective of the Bill, there have been many disagreements about certain aspects of the Bill—hence the amendments in Committee and on Report. To try to give the impression that everyone supports everything in the Bill is somewhat disingenuous.

Mr. Radice: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I think that he will retain his position as a PPS having made them.
I do not want to be accused of filibustering on my own bill, so I conclude by dealing with two issues, before I turn to the Government's position. I have with me a letter written and signed this morning by Mr. Bangemann, who was asked by the chairman of the European Parliament's committee on the environment for a view on how the Bill fits in with European legislation. The letter states:
I would like to confirm that under the existing Community directives, an assessment report written in view of granting a marketing authorition, and reasons for such decisions, may be disclosed by the competent national authority who established the report, provided it does not contain commercially confidential information.
Such a possibility of disclosure is not affected by the proposal to introduce a decentralised marketing authorisation system (amendment of directive 75/319. SYN 310).
Furthermore, it would be consistent with the Community's policy on transparency since there is already unanimous agreement in council on the proposed regulation for the centralised authorisation (SYN 300), which states, in its Article 12 &4:
`4. Upon request from any interested person, the Agency shall make available the evaluation report of the medicinal product by the Committee for proprietary medicinal products and the reasons for its opinion in favour granting authorization, after deletion of any information of a commercially confidential nature'.
The Bill is in line with what is happening in Europe.
The British industry, with no hard evidence for saying so, claims that in some curious way it will be labouring under a great disadvantage in Europe if we have an open licensing system in this country. That ignores the fact that under the decentralised system, before any product is licensed in this country, it will have to go through our own licensing processes. It is not just a question of accepting on the nod whatever comes from other licensing authorities in the European Community. For example, it is open to our licensing authority to challenge what has been licensed in another country, and we can also make public the basis on which licences have been granted in other countries. That is never said by those who use the European argument, so let us not hear so much of that argument. The Government say that they want to be at the heart of Europe, so it is about time that they took a lead on something in Europe. They could do that on this issue.
That brings me to the Government's position. One of the features of the debate has been the Government's change of heart. Before Second Reading, they said that they would give the Bill a fair wind. On Second Reading, the Minister said that he was in favour of the Bill's principle, that he was against unnecessary secrecy and that there were objections to section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968. However, in Committee I realised, as did all hon. Members, that there had been a change of heart. The Minister who is responsible for promoting open government, the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) had clearly lost the argument.
1.45 pm
The Department of Health is the sponsoring Department for the drugs industry, and it is also in charge of the nation's health and is responsible for looking after patients. There is a possible contradiction there because at times conflicts can arise. At any rate, that Department has other fish to fry, and they were mentioned in the debate. They are the issues of cost and the limited list.
It looks as though the Government, to get the industry's support, decided to change their position on my Bill and the idea of the licensing authority being more open. The 113 amendments are a clear attempt to wreck the Bill by talking it out. I therefore accuse the Government of double dealing over the Bill and of collusion with the industry. They are also reneging on their open government commitments. The Bill will be talked out at 2.30, but that will not be the end of the argument or the process. It will be the beginning.

Mr. Merchant: The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) played with my intervention a little, but I do not criticise him for doing that. However, my intervention was crucial to the debate on the Bill and the new clause. I drew a distinction between the Bill's principle and its practical application and the other effects that it might have on the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere.
I have made it clear from the beginning that I strongly support the Bill's principle, but I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman's final forecast will come to pass. In the fullness of time there will be legislation to alter section 118, which is clearly anachronistic and out of step with the Government's avowed intention to make information more freely available and to encourage open government. I have always been strongly wedded to both principles.
The scope, timing and detail of the Bill raise difficulties. I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Durham, North said, and I have some reservations about the new clause. It is difficult to achieve the right balance and work out exactly where the pharmaceutical industry stands. Since before Second Reading, despite playing an active role, I have received no indication of the industry's stand. Nor have I received an approach from a major pharmaceutical company based in my constituency. I find it slightly strange, but that is a matter for the company concerned. That does not help me in trying to ascertain the industry's position.
The pharmaceutical industry is important arid beneficial to this country, so it is vital not to do anything that would harm it or restrict its competitiveness. I am sure that the hon. Member for Durham, North agrees.

Mr. Knapman: Would that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) had adopted that view. He quoted my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State saying that the Government did not object to the principle of the Bill. It might have been fairer if the hon. Gentleman had quoted also the following comment by my hon. Friend the Minister. He said:
These are difficult times for all manufacturers, and I am concerned that at a time when we are determined to reduce the burden that Government place upon industry, the Bill could increase them.
Although my hon. Friend accepted the principle, he made it perfectly clear that he had many objections on matters of detail.

Mr. Merchant: My hon. Friend emphasises the impact of the legislation on the pharmaceutical industry alongside


other matters affecting it. My hon. Friend the Minister must bear the burden of those decisions. He had a difficult time doing so in Committee. On one occasion, when he seemed to be voting on his own, I felt sorry for him and therefore joined him on two occasions. The other reason, which is more important from the industry's point of view, was the Bill's impact on the industry at this time.
The industry is facing other regulations and the effects of national and European bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Durham, North seemed almost to be scoffing at the agreements that must be reached on the limited list. He seemed to suggest at least that that should not influence the Bill. Right hon. and hon. Members are practical men and realise that all aspects of Government policy will work together, have an impact on each other, and affect the industry. The industry should not be expected to bear too heavy a burden in one go at this time.
The burdens are many. They include controls on labelling and quality that are much more rigid than in most other industries. There is the impact of European legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said what would happen if the social chapter were adopted. I referred to the limited list. All are aspects of intervention in an industry that is and must remain competitive in world terms. It is important to take those factors into account, and I make no apology for doing so—and my hon. Friend the Minister should do the same.

Mr. Spring: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's point about the principle of openness, which the Government and other right hon. and hon. Members would endorse in many areas. However, can one imagine the French Government allowing their pharmaceutical industry to be disadvantaged in any way? We are seeing the potential for an EEC-wide licensing authority. That will be the moment, on a pan-European basis, for greater openness. If it were to happen unilaterally, it would be costly and difficult for the pharmaceutical industry, employment, our trade balance, and other considerations that are so serious for the future of the industry and of employment in this country.

Mr. Merchant: The future of EEC regulation in this specific area should be added to my list. The negotiations and discussions that will have to be carried out in advance of the regulation coming into effect are crucial and should not be obscured by the House of Commons making decisions that will have a deleterious impact.

Mr. Knapman: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) is about the only hon. Member who cannot wait for Dr. Bangemann to bring forward proposals in this respect.

Mr. Merchant: I hope that the hon. Member for Durham, North does not have an unhealthy relationship with Dr. Bangemann.

Mr. Radice: It is not a question of having an unhealthy relationship with Dr. Bangemann. However, he is the Commissioner for the industries involved. He may be a figure of fun to some Conservative Members, but, if one is concerned about finding out what is going on in the

European Community, it is only sensible to talk to his office and his department and then to talk to the European Parliament.

Mr. Merchant: Yes. I thought that that, in a sense, was what we were arguing about. I hasten to add that I was inferring only an unhealthy intellectual relationship with Dr. Bangemann. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that it is sensible to discuss these matters with Dr. Bangeman, his office and others, but that, surely, is an argument for proceeding with some caution with the Bill. I do not want to overdo the point. I merely say that it is an element which we should take into account in our discussion of the Bill.
I am concerned about the reference in subsection (1) (b) to animal testing, a very contentious issue upon which I have strong feelings. It is a matter of great concern throughout the country. We have to be careful about being unduly restrictive regarding the amount of information that, rightly, should come into the public domain. In the vast majority of cases, the place at which testing is carried out will be known anyway. That information is widely disseminated and is reasonably easily found out by the pressure groups involved. I see nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Waterson: I appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's views, but does he agree that revelation of the place where experiments or tests are carried out has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill? That may be a matter for another Bill, but it does not legitimately come within the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Merchant: That is precisely why I question this provision. I do not understand why it has been included in new clause 4.

Mr. Couchman: That point has been made consistently to me throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Both the location of establishments where animal testing takes place and, particularly, the names of the people involved in the testing are matters that the industry regards as being of the highest importance. My hon. Friend knows well the major centre in his constituency where animal testing takes place. I am aware of others where it takes place. The attentions of the animal liberationists have given rise to the most elaborate security precautions having to be introduced in places where research should take place in a more free and happy atmosphere.

Mr. Merchant: It is also a matter of concern to the general public. I am not talking specifically about individual pressure groups. Research involving animals is an important aspect of the law to be upheld. There have been recent examples of abuse where the law was slow to enforce and to correct what should not have happened in the first place. I therefore view with some concern anything that would hinder the flow of such information, although I accept that there must be some controls on freedom of information in this area, especially on patents, competition and other trade secrets. The provison should not extend as far the new clause proposes.
2 pm
I do not want to take up much more time as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. I will conclude by referring to a point that was made about the French situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) rightly focused attention on France


and asked whether the French Government would allow the pharmaceutical industry to fail to compete with other European countries. Of course the French Government would not allow that. They would do all that they could to protect and encourage their industry and would bend every regulation that they could. The British Government and our laws should do likewise.
The same can be said of the United States. The United States has a Freedom of Information Act and the free flow of information and open government are well advanced, which I entirely applaud, but the United States Government are never backward in coming forward when they deem it necessary to protect their own big industries against foreign competitors—and understandably so. We must keep that in our sights, because it is in the overwhelming interests of the British people, employees in the industry and the industry itself. Economic advantages flow from the industry successfully competing in the world, so we must advance under the Bill with the principal objective of making information as free as possible. I would not wish us to step down from that high objective, but we must realise that the pure principle must, to an extent, be limited by practice. We must, therefore, limit it by our best judgment of what is in the competitive interest of our pharmaceutical industry.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I have listened with much interest and have given the Bill quite a lot of thought in the past months. I have reached a conclusion. With so much being done in Europe on the issue, it would be unhelpful for the United Kingdom to find itself with legal obligations in advance of decisions in Europe.

Ms Lynne: rose—

Mr. Sackville: I shall press on; we are fairly short of time.
I believe that we would run a serious risk of putting the United Kingdom at a grave competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis other licensing authorities in Europe if we were to introduce legislation at this stage. This is not only the Government's view; it is shared by the pharmaceutical industry, although I admit that the picture has been muddy at different times. The industry remains unhappy with the Bill and does not want legislation until the position in Europe has been clarified and until we all know what will have to be disclosed in the new centralised and decentralised procedures. That could take a great deal of time, and I shall explain the issue further.
The future systems, as they are known, will come into force about 18 months after a decision has been taken on the siting of the European medicines evaluation agency—the EMEA—which the Government are keen to see sited in the United Kingdom. The Commission believes that a decision on siting will be taken at the Heads of Government meeting in June in Copenhagen. If that occurs, the proposals will come into force on 1 January 1995. If not, the proposals will not come into force until a later date.
The proposals are currently before the European Parliament and provide for a new regulation and directives that will bind the EC together and provide for common procedures. The United Kingdom will be a signatory to those proposals, which will probably be adopted by the Council of Ministers towards the end of this year. The proposals envisage a centralised procedure—

Ms Lynne: Have the British Government been pressing for legislation in the European Parliament to introduce more open government in respect of medicinal information?

Mr. Sackville: Yes, and I shall deal with that issue later.
The proposals envisage a centralised procedure for handling innovative and biotechnology products and a decentralised procedure for other products. The essential feature of the centralised procedure is that applications will be made centrally to the EMEA and information supplied by companies will be entrusted to the EMEA and the Commission which will make the decision on whether a licence should be granted.
When member states are asked by the EMEA to assess a company's dossier, they will do so on behalf of the EMEA. In that respect, member states will be handling data for the EMEA. The subsequent making available of that information would be for the Commission to determine. That contrasts sharply with the position of member states currently and in the new decentralised procedures where licensing information will continue to be exchanged but in which each member state will remain responsible for determining the degree of confidentiality to be afforded various pieces of information.
At present, there is no agreement whatsoever among member states on what should be disclosed to the public in the decentralised procedures and only a vague reference to the making available of the
assessment report and the reasons for the CPMP's opinion, after deletion of any information of a commercially confidential nature
in the centralised procedure.
There are still many details of the operation of the centralised procedure to be worked out, and that is likely to take the whole of the period between now and 1995.

Mr. Radice: Are the Government pressing for a more effective open system at the European level? I do not agree that the centralised procedure is vague. Are the Government pressing for a common open system in the decentralised licensing system?

Mr. Sackville: Yes, and I shall deal with that in a moment. Questions such as the layout, the amount of detail and the nature of the confidential information to be deleted have yet to be determined. Officials from the Medicines Control Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will, of course, play a full part in the discussions and will do so on the basis of two clear principles. The first is that the definition of confidential information must be sufficient to protect the commercial interests of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry. The second, which is subject to the first, is that they must press our Community partners to agree arrangements that will make available the maximum amount of information in as clear and as lucid a form as possible. I think that that answers the interventions from the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Durham, North (Mr. Radice).
Those arrangements would apply only to licences issued by the Commission under the centralised procedure. Under the decentralised procedure, member states will remain responsible in accordance with their own national arrangements for issuing licences and for making information available. Subject to further consultation with all interested parties, it will be the Government's intention


to see how far national arrangements can be modelled on those agreed as suitable for the centralised procedure. We shall be urging other member states to do likewise.
I hope the House can see, therefore, that if the United Kingdom jumped the gun and had a requirement in law to produce information with which the industry was not content, it would be reasonable to expect companies to go somewhere else first to market their products. Companies will look at what each member state is required by its laws to publish and at which would expose the least amount of their commercial interests. They would then take a commercial decision on where to place the application in the first instance, knowing that under the new decentralised procedures, that would be a passport to obtaining a similar licence from any other member state in which they chose to apply.

Mr. Radice: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Sackville: I will press on because I do not want to be accused of talking out the Bill. Companies would choose first to obtain a licence from the member state offering the most safeguards. From the United Kingdom perspective, that would not only divert important licensing work from here, but would severely risk reducing the United Kingdom's influence on the high scientific standards that we are concerned should be applied to all licence applications in Europe.
The Government want to be helpful. We propose, therefore, that we should take up the reins in Europe and drive the debate towards more openness. We should want to look at the practical issues involved before deciding what would be beneficial and what might be harmful, but I can assure the House that the Government will wish to be at the forefront of developments. Officials in the Medicines Control Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will pursue new initiatives in Europe. Not only will they initiate discussion leading to the disclosure of meaningful evaluation reports in the centralised procedure for which the Commission will be liable, but they will pursue with the other member states the possibilities for opening up more information to the public in the decentralised procedures without jeopardising legitimate commercial interests. In particular, they will consider the shape and content of an acceptable assessment report and will also consider how more information on adverse drug reactions can be made available in a meaningful way without raising unnecessary fears in the public. In doing so, we shall build on the Medicines Control Agency's most advanced system in Europe for reporting adverse reactions —ADROIT, the adverse drug reaction on-line information tracking system—and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate's suspected adverse reactions surveillance scheme.
On all those aspects, we shall want to discuss the details with industry and with consumer interests, taking account of what has happened in the United States and other parts of the world with freedom of information provisions about which there has been some discussion today.
I have mentioned our proposals for Europe, but, of course, we have not been inactive in the United Kingdom. In health as in other areas of government, we are working hard to improve public access to information. For the first time, the public now have the right to information about

the performance and plans of their local hospitals and health services, and to attend annual meetings with senior hospital managers. In our patients charter for the NHS, we have introduced a new right for patients to be given detailed information on local health services, including quality standards and maximum waiting times. For the first time, patients and their doctors have access to information that empowers them to decide where they can secure appropriate treatment most promptly. We have also created a new right for patients to receive prompt and full answers to complaints about NHS services. By increasing openess in this way, we shall maintain and build on the confidence of the public in the excellent service that the NHS provides.
With medicines, as with other aspects of health, we are continuing to increase the amount of information available to the public. For example, the "British Pharmacopoeia", which gives very detailed information about the specification, safety and quality of medicinal products, has been available publicly for some years. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry publishes a compendium of data sheets. The Medicines Control Agency has been making available to doctors and pharmacists an increasing number of summaries of drug reaction data. Additionally, we have always been concerned that labels, leaflets and promotional material should be presented so that they are understandable and accurate, and do not mislead the public. That was our position even before the appearance of the recent EC directives on these issues.
2.14 pm
Where there are problems with licensed medicines, details of the problems and the outcome of analyses and investigations are published by the Medicines Control Agency three or four times a year in the publication "Current Problems". This is made available to doctors, dentists, coroners and a range of other interested parties, including "Social Audit"—one of the sponsors of the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). That publication is in the public domain and there is no reason why members of the public should not see it. I hope that I have shown that our commitment to more openness in government is being matched by real increases in the availability of information about medicines to the public.
What is more, it is our intention to continue to increase the amount of publicly available information about medicines. We have begun to discuss with the pharmaceutical industry a new voluntary code of practice to increase the amount of information that they give the public. That approach is consistent with our determination to ensure that companies in the United Kingdom are not weighed down by too many regulations and can compete on equal terms with foreign companies. Nevertheless, the House should rest assured that, where public safety is at risk, we will not rely on a voluntary code but will use our existing powers to inform the public of the dangers.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister suggested some months ago that he would give the Bill a fair wind. In Committee, however, and today especially, it has been wrecked on rocks put in its way by Conservative Back Benchers. Conservative Members have tabled spurious amendments and mounted spurious campaigns. Behind the scenes, they have deliberately tried to block measures to promote the


Bill. We have witnessed scurrilous attempts by the industry and its supporters in the House to undermine a Bill which would allow doctors and patients information that is available to doctors and patients in other nations—information about the safety of medicines, practical information about the way in which prescribing relates to specific patients and information relating to the efficacy of particular drugs.
Is it not interesting to reflect that if this debate were taking place in the United States, the Minister and his civil servants could give information about drugs that were produced in this country without being prosecuted, whereas in this country it is a criminal offence for a civil servant, a Minister or an hon. Member to place the same information in the public domain?
We have heard nothing about the victims. There has been no word about the consumer—the patient. We have received plenty of information about the interests of big business and the big pharmaceutical companies, which want to ensure that the British public are kept in the dark about some of their products. That same industry hypocritically—

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I will give way to the hon. Lady at some point.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No. I will not.

Mr. Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On mature reflection, I think that my remarks are more appropriate to a point of order than to an intervention. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has used the word "spurious" and the word "scurrilous", both in connection with a proposal that I tabled in the best possible faith, and I believe that he should be required to withdraw. As I have explained, I have no particular axe to grind; I merely want the legislation to be done properly. That is my only interest in giving up a Friday in my delightful constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, but I am afraid that the words that have been used so far are parliamentary words.

Mr. McCartney: We have parliamentary words that can be used to protect our constituents from the scurrilous and scandalous activities surrounding the progress of this Bill and other Bills through the House.
It is interesting to note the companies that are involved in trying to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book: Glaxo; Boots; the company of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), Pfizer; ICI; Wellcome; Ciba Geigy—

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that I advise Pfizer and it is true that I have discussed the Bill with that company. But not one word of written information has come from it to brief me, nor has one word in any of the amendments that I have tabled in Committee or on Report come from it. I take the most extreme exception to the imputation that the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) makes. It is quite wrong and he should withdraw what he has just said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has placed his position on the record. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) referred to the hon. Gentleman's company. I imagine that that was a slip of the tongue.

Mr. McCartney: It was not a slip of the tongue. It was a reference to the Register of Members' Interests. I have no problems with what I said. The hon. Gentleman obviously has a problem to explain to his constituents.
The position is that Ciba Geigy, Smith Kline Beecham, Boots Pharmaceuticals, Fisons Pharmaceuticals, Lilley Research, the Government's own Medicines Control Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are using legislation in the United States to seek information, but that information is being denied to the public today.
Why should that happen? Why have not the hon. Member for Gillingham and those who support his views said anything about the victims? More than 100 medicines have had their licences withdrawn or suspended since 1979. They include Opren, which was withdrawn in 1982, and the tranquilliser Halcion, which it seems some people are trying to get back on to the market. However, nothing has been said about the victims of those drugs. There has been no explanation or apology.
In the face of that, hon. Members are trying to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book today. The Bill would, for the first time, put people in Britain, doctors and the industry on the same footing as people in the United States. Why is the British industry and its colleagues overseas so opposed to this minimal measure? Why should the industry undermine its own credibility by ensuring that the Bill does not reach the statute book today?
The Minister said that there will be measures in Europe. However, as usual with this Government, the Minister used that information not as a positive attempt to support the Bill, but as a negative reason to oppose it. The Minister was right to say that there will be a system of centralisation in Europe. However, that will be a two-tier system—centralised and decentralised. The Bill is about the decentralised part of the system.
If we are to accept the centralised part, as the Minister indicated, it is our responsibility to pass the Bill. It would be the basis for a decentralised system under the centralised arrangements which the Minister has already said that he supports. From his own mouth, the Minister has condemned his own position.
The reason for that is clear and simple. On the Conservative Back Benches there is the naked interest of the pharmaceutical companies. On the Front Bench there is a Minister who is prepared to talk tough about the way in which drug companies are ripping us off in the national health service in respect of contract prices. The Government talk tough and they do tough things to patients. They would rather increase prescription charges and deny information to patients than have an adequate arrangement about the way in which drugs are charged in relation to the national health service.
This is a clear and simple naked trade-off between the Department and the industry. The Minister will go easy on the Bill in the hope that, in the negotiations over contract prices, the drugs industry will go easy in terms of the profits that it wants to make from the national health service. That is the plain fact of the matter.
The debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House today have done the House a disservice in respect of the way in which Conservative Members and their industry interests have nakedly attempted to ensure that the Bill does not reach the statute book. I suggest that they should look to their consciences and consider the victims. Those accidents would not have happened if the information had been in the public domain in the first place.

Ms Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disgraceful that Conservative Members have denied us time to debate the Bill properly by filibustering in the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill? They should be ashamed of themselves. They should look to their consciences and answer to their constituents for their disgraceful behaviour.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady is right. The action was deliberate. It is interesting to note that some of the Conservative Members who took part in the debate on the earlier Bill have been most vociferous in their opposition to this Bill or, at least, were rather negative about ensuring that it reaches the statute book.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who moved the new clause from a constituency interest, represents one of the large drug companies.

Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman and I will keep that promise. I am not sure when I will give way to him—I might do that at 29 and a half minutes past—but I will give way.
The new clause is largely a wrecking amendment. The hon. Member for Eastbourne used arguments that were rejected on Second Reading. However, he was not in the Chamber then. Today, he used arguments that were made in Committee and rejected. He referred to proposals that have been raised in the general discussions between the parties—but he did not participate in them.
One is left with the clear conclusion that the hon. Gentleman has been wheeled in—as other Conservative Members have been wheeled in—to ensure that the Bill does not get the fair wind that the Secretary of State and the Minister promised. It is on the back of the interests of our constituents. He has raised issues, but there has been no evidence whatever to substantiate the points made.

Mr. Waterson: I must stress, not for the first time, that I do not speak as a representative of, or consultant to, a company, or any sort of spokesman for any sort of company. The hon. Gentleman said that I represented a company in my constituency. The only entity that I represent in this and other debates is my constituency and constituents. I have taken a view of what is best for them and the country as a whole.

Mr. McCartney: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he will reflect on the promises that he and other Conservative Members made about secrets and open government not simply at the general election but in the patients charter. The Minister is supposedly responsible for the publication of the patients charter which says that patients have the right to

a clear explanation of any treatment proposed, including any risks". 
Is that not what the Bill is about?

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: No, I will not give way. The Under-Secretary of State for Health participated in the production of the Government's White Paper, "The Health of the Nation", which says that the Government are responsible for
providing reliable information on which individuals can base their decisions on matters which affect their health" and that
people need information to help make the right choices". The Government also aim to encourage better prescribing. Is that not what the Bill is about? Does it give effect to those principles? 
Not one Conservative Member has shown any support for the proposals. The Minister did not mention them. All we got was a litany of excuses, half-baked ideas, untruths and squalid interventions about the industry itself. We did not hear anything about the right of consumers—who spend a great deal of money, either as taxpayers through the national health service or as consumers, in buying a variety of brands over the counter—to have information about the products that they purchase.

Mr. Radice: I agree with my hon. Friend. Would not we take more seriously the Government's position—which they have apparently proposed in the last gasp—that they would press for a more open licensing system in Europe if at least they said that they would accept the principles of the Bill and use them to press the matter? They have not said that and, therefore, we cannot take what they have said seriously.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister avoided saying anything about the Bill. He talked about the citizens charter—about how people can telephone their local manager or local district general hospital trust number and have a word once a year. He said that people could have more information about the waiting lists—instead of waiting for two years, people may have to wait for 12 or 18 months. We heard nothing about the detail of the Bill or why he opposes it. He gave us no alternative to it, although he has had months to put forward an alternative. He could have tabled amendments in Committee but did not do so.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McCartney: I will not give way to the hon. Lady. because she simply wants to filibuster in the last three minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when the hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. McCartney: The only hon. Member to whom I will give way is the Minister.

Mr. Sackville: rose—

Mr. McCartney: The Minister is enthusiastic. Will he give a commitment that he will have further discussions with the sponsors of the Bill and openly with the Department about making proposals in line with what he said to ensure that we can incorporate in those


Government proposals the aspects that Labour Members in Committee wanted to see in place? If the Bill is talked out, will the Minister ensure that there is a way forward?

Mr. Knapman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A headline in The Guardian today states, "Tories to talk out drug secrecy bill". Frankly, some of us would not mind that, bearing in mind that we do not agree wholly with the Bill. Do you agree, however, that if I am lucky enough to catch your eye at 2.29 pm, I should not be accused on the morrow by The Guardian of talking the Bill out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to rule on what is written in The Guardian.

Mr. McCartney: The accusation is accurate because Conservative Members tabled more than 100 amendments to the Bill and spoke at length on the Sexual Offences Bill to ensure that this Bill was not subject to a proper debate.
In the final minute of the debate, will the Minister clearly state whether he will agree to talks to ensure that the Bill is able to reach the statute book?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

It being half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered on Friday 7 May.

Private Members' Bills

TOBACCO ADVERTISING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

ENERGY (FAIR COMPETITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for presuming adjourned debate on Question —[12 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

DECLARATION OF WAR (REQUIREMENT FOR PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

HOMICIDE (DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

PENSIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

JUSTICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION (PARENTAL LEAVE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

REGULATION OF WHEEL-CLAMPING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

NATIONAL SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

WEDDINGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

HARE COURSING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 14 May.

EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

HUMAN FERTILISATION (CHOICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 May.

Metal Recycling

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House.—[Mr. David Davis.]

.32 pm

Mr. Paul Marland: The Government have put recycling high on the environmental agenda. A duty of care and several studies have been undertaken to create the framework for that to be delivered. Last July, a draft directive on packaging and the packaging of waste was published by the European Commission which set some demanding targets. Those developments show how seriously the issue of recycling is now taken, because it is an important way in which we can conserve our environment.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is to reply to the debate, because he has always taken a positive interest in this issue. I remember when he and I served on the Standing Committee on the initial Environmental Protection Bill when we moved several amendments designed to help the metal recycling industry.
Now the agenda is being set to increase our recycling rates in the United Kingdom so we must consider practical ways of achieving that end. I shall focus on that objective by referring directly to the experiences of one of the champions of recycling in the United Kingdom—the steel industry, and its associated metals reclamation industry. Although political attention to the subject is fairly recent, it is important to remember that the metals industry has been recycling huge quantities of steel and other metals for many years. Indeed, recycling is a routine part of the steel-making process. Steel is truly the most recycled metal in the world, and the scale is impressive. About 300 million tonnes of steel are recycled every year —40 per cent. of world production. That represents a saving of 90 million tonnes of coal and 200 million tonnes of iron ore. That colossal contribution to preserving the environment is a great credit to the scrap metal industry, which is rarely set alongside the sandals and safari jackets of the television environmentalists, but its contribution to saving the environment is much greater. I have always believed that farmers and scrap metal dealers were the original environmentalists.
In this country, as much as 82 per cent. of the steel available for recycling is recycled into new products, using electronic arc furnaces, whose feedstock is nearly 100 per cent. recycled metal. A rapidly increasing proportion of the recycled steel is made up of steel cans. At present, three out of four cans are steel, and each one of us uses on average about 200 steel cans every year. They include drinks cans, paint cans, food cans, pet food cans, sardine tins, shoe polish cans and aerosol cans. British Steel Tinplate has successfully driven forward steel can recycling in the United Kingdom, together with an independent company, AMG Resources, which has gained a reputation as a world leader in the operation of the technology that not only recovers the steel from the can, but separates and recaptures the tin coating.
Last year, steel can recycling broke all records, and 1· billion cans were recycled. I mention that positive achievement by the steel industry because I am disturbed by the misconceptions that people have about recycling and their prejudices about the environmental impact of


different packaging materials. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that fact in future policy formulation and execution.
People rightly exercise their consumer choice in supermarkets and grocery stores to select what they perceive to be green products and packages. However, studies within the steel industry show that consumers know very little about the real environmental profile of packaging materials. The steel industry welcomes political developments. The proposed European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste should induce dramatic increases in recycling rates and raise the steel industry's profile in relation to its well-established reclamation facilities and excellent recycling record.
The steel industry has made great strides in that sphere. Since 1968, the standard soft drinks can has become 55 per cent. lighter. An energy saving of 39 per cent. has been achieved on the amount of energy used to make a standard steel soft drinks can since 1977. If all the cans in the United Kingdom market were made from steel, the energy saving would be the equivalent of the electric lighting needs of every United Kingdom household for a fortnight—an incredible statistic. The resource-saving process has culminated in the development project, "The Ultimate Steel Can". Its objective is to reduce the weight, energy and materials consumption of the construction of steel cans by a further 30 per cent., and should be encouraged.
A misconception that seems to prevail is that returnable packages are always better for the environment than recycling. Return trippage rates need to be high to represent an environmental benefit, and often such rates are not achieved.
Secondly, returnable containers use greater quantities of energy and materials to meet the demands of strength required for repeat journeys, for cleaning, sterilisation and resealing. This is wasteful, complicated and time consuming. Returnable packages are bulky, and sometimes heavy and costly to transport.
The teeth of the EC directive are in its targets for recovery and recycling. Within 10 years from adoption of the directive, 90 per cent. of packaging output should be removed from the waste stream for recovery, 60 per cent. of it from recycling. Alternative methods of recuperation are allowed to make up the remaining 30 per cent. If we transpose the objectives to individual packaging materials, some difficulties emerge. Incineration for energy recovery, composting or chemical breakdown are the alternative recovery methods, none of which is applicable to steel. It seems that the target for steel can recycling is 90 per cent. by the year 2005 for the United Kingdom, so this eminently recyclable material, whose industry is making essential qualitative improvements, could be given the toughest targets. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that recycling targets are logical and appropriately distributed among the material sectors.
The directive does not help by assessing recovery methods and their relative merits. An important assumption, however, is that packaging waste is recovered for recycling direct from the consumer, presumably by means of bottle and can banks or kerb-side collection schemes.
Steel, of course, is attractive to magnets, and there is a range of systems that use simple magnetism to pluck out steel cans in immense numbers, with great ease, directly from the waste stream. In the United Kingdom, 27 enlightened local authorities operate magnetic extraction

facilities, recovering as much as 80 per cent. of the steel cans from local domestic refuse—about 5 million steel cans every working day.
Steel cans recovered by magnetic extraction generate a revenue for the operator. One local authority in the north of England has saved as much as £150,000 on its waste disposal costs using magnetic extraction facilities and selling the cans recovered.
If we want to meet the recycling targets, it is essential that we use the most efficient, reliable and economical methods to recover recyclable material. That principle should be expressed in the directive and should be at the forefront of Ministers' minds in the execution of policy in the United Kingdom. The rapporteur of the EC environment committee has proposed this to the drafters in the form of an amendment to the directive. I stress that it is important that the Government consider this new development and support it.
A key advantage of magnetic extraction is its compatability with other forms of recycling—energy recovery, refuse-derived fuel and composting facilities. The association of materials recovery plant, such as magnetic extraction works, with other recuperation plant can dramatically increase potential recovery—we could call it double recycling. I ask my hon. Friend to assess this, with the objective of meeting the highest possible targets with the maximum possible economy, efficiency and environmental care.
Not surprisingly, the Government have seen the woolly areas in the directive and have identified a role to "provide a framework" for a national integrated waste management policy. Some economic initiatives have already been introduced. Supplementary credit approvals have been made available to local authorities, but these do not look as attractive for efficient bulk recovery facilities, which demand high initial outlay, as cheap, inefficient and low-yielding collection schemes, which may prove costly to operate in the long run.
Similarly, that a local authority should be obliged to allocate to itself a recycling credit for operating a magnetic extractor is not good sense. But ensuring that local authorities feed the revenue from recovered steel back into the expansion of recycling facilities is a sound proposition. Furthermore, recycling credits are very much at the discretion of local authorities. If a national recovery scheme, such as Save-a-Can, is truly to help by diverting recyclables from landfill, recycling credits need to be available systematically, consistently, reliably and equitably.
Despite the important role of the scrap industry and the real environmental achievements of the steel reclamation industry, they are faced with a multitude of regulations. Despite the good intentions behind them, these regulations could lead to the closing of many properly operated scrap recovery businesses and, ironically, that would have a seriously harmful effect on the environment.
The Government have understood the difficulties of the duty of care and its associated regulations, and they are to be congratulated on holding back the tide, since 1 April 1982, so as properly to review the practical detail of the proposals.
I shall quickly describe three of the many problems that the steel reclamation industry could face when the new regulations come into force. It is presently intended to introduce subsistence charges for waste management licences that are required for all metal reclamation


operations. It is estimated that fewer than 30 per cent. of potential licensees will be licensed by the time the regulations are introduced.
Successful applicants will face high charges of between £850 and £2,500 per annum for licences and those not yet licensed could have to wait up to five years to have their applications fully processed. In present trading conditions, those who are licensed can ill afford to give their competitors such a start. Scrapyards have been given an extension of the period of grace beyond 1 June this year, and that is widely appreciated.
Those who have not applied for licences by the time that they are introduced will technically be in breach of the law, as will their suppliers. The regulations make it an offence for organisations to send controlled waste, which is how the law ludicrously describes ferrous and non-ferrous scrap, to unlicensed operations. It will not be possible to enforce that law without bringing many reclamation and recycling businesses to a halt or even diverting recyclable materials to landfill sites.
The duty of care could have a negative effect on the nationwide consumer can bank scheme operated by British Steel. That scheme of consumer collection banks has expanded from 200 such banks to nearly 1,000 Save-a-Can banks in two and a half years. That is not only an important contribution to the number of steel cans that can be recycled, but an important point of contact between the recycling industry and the consumer.
It is still unclear whether every can bank site and every agent who helps to service them will be faced with similar obstacles of excessive bureaucracy. Furthermore, the administration of the intricate detail of recording the returns of every can bank, some of which are no bigger than a postbox, may be a serious distraction for Save-a-Can from its primary objective of providing facilities throughout the United Kingdom.
As the Minister knows, the scrap metal industry is not averse to licensing in itself, but it should be introduced in a controlled fashion, and I recommend that he should recognise and highlight the difference between reclamation, recycling and waste disposal.
The steel reclamation and recycling industry employs about 20,000 people in the United Kingdom and is a leading example of resourcefulness and personal endeavour. The industry is a foundation of our industrial base. We continue to produce high-tech steels for worldwide markets. It is essential that the true strengths —strategic, economic and environmental—be upheld in the face of imported and other materials, which displace work in the United Kingdom and which, on analysis, have been shown not to be as environmentally friendly as steel.
While the steel reclamation and recycling industry approves of the principle of the environmental regulations, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to introduce them sensibly and logically, as I believe he is trying to do, so that the industry can continue to recover recyclable material and to meet environmental objectives in a healthy, commercial environment.
The decision of the Department of the Environment to scrap the idea of a register of contaminated land was widely appreciated, because it would have had a devastating effect not only on the waste and recycling industries but on a wide spectrum of business throughout

the United Kingdom. By that action, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his Department have demonstrated that they not only listen to industry but also hear what it has to say—and there is a tremendous difference between the two. That is a clear demonstration of my right hon. and learned Friend's attitude. He is there to help and not to hinder, and for that I applaud him.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robin Squire): I welcome this chance to return to a subject on which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) and I spent many happy hours during the passage of the Bill that led to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. My hon. Friend has long experience of these issues, and has built up a formidable reputation on the subject. I echo his praise for the steel industry's record on recycling. I also support what our scrap metal industry is doing to help relieve the pressures on our natural resources. As my hon. Friend said, scrap merchants were sorting and reusing metals long before most of us had given much thought to recycling.
The importance of industry's role cannot be overstated. Many people are now calling for more emphasis to be placed on recycling. But it is only because industry has developed the technology to use recycled materials that their views can be put into practice. All companies, whether or not they are part of the "recycling industry", have a part to play. They should be considering whether their goods are recyclable or could be made more easily so. And they should be exploring the scope for using more recycled products as raw materials on the production line. That is essential if there are to be growing markets for the materials that people take to can and bottle banks or put out for separate collection. It also makes good commercial sense because environmental issues increasingly influence what people buy.
The Government have launched funds for industries that are developing new processes or technology to make recycling easier. We have had a considerable number of recycling-related applications for those funds. The Government have also set up an Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment, which consists of chairmen and senior directors of British industries. The committee has a working group on recycling, which has been examining measures that both industry and the Government can take to achieve increased recycling.
Of course, as my hon. Friend has said, recycling should not be viewed in isolation. He rightly pointed to the value of saving resources in the production process. Moreover, recycling is not always the best environmental or economic option. For instance, it is usually better to avoid waste in the first place than to recycle it once it has been produced. And, although I understand my hon. Friend's apprehensions about the value of returnable containers in some cases, reusing a product can sometimes make sense—carrier bags and milk bottles are obvious examples.
I am pleased that the steel industry has welcomed the recent political developments in the EC and in the United Kingdom. The proposed EC packaging directive, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is still at the early stages and we therefore welcome comments on the proposals from all interested parties. Perhaps I should set out our domestic policies on packaging and explain the background to the proposed directive and our preliminary view of it.
We are committed to reducing the environmental impact of packaging. Our policy on packaging waste is part of an overall approach to solid waste—minimise waste wherever practicable; reuse or recycle it where it is generated; and dispose of the remaining waste safely. The recycling of packaging waste will be an important element in meeting our target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the end of the decade. We are discussing with the packaging industry how it might take on its share of responsibility for packaging waste.
The proposal for a directive arises in part from concern that the unilateral measures being taken by various member states may restrict trade or distort competition, and in part from a desire to establish high environmental standards in the management of packaging waste. The proposal would require all such waste to be collected with a view to recovery. In this context, "recovery" means materials recycling, composting and energy recovery. My hon. Friend referred to the targets being proposed—90 per cent. of all packaging waste to be recovered and 60 per cent. of each material to be recycled. All packaging would have to meet certain essential requirements, including constraints on the presence of heavy metals, and marked in order to make recovery and recycling easier. A wide range of data would be collected to monitor the achievement of the objectives of the directive and to provide the basis for further initiatives.
We have welcomed the proposal for a harmonised approach to reducing the impact of packaging waste. Negotiation of the proposed directive has recently begun and it will be essential to ensure that potential problems for trade and competition are resolved in the context of realistic and achievable targets. The targets and other policy measures must be established with due regard to the scientific evidence and without losing sight of the potential economic impact. The data requirements, in particular, may impose a burden and must therefore be proportionate to the need to ensure compliance with the directive.
Officials have been in touch with a large number of interested organisations and we shall continue to consult on the proposal. We welcome views on the proposal and suggestions for improvement, which we will take into account, along with the results of work that we have commissioned on the targets and the cost of compliance.
Local authorities have a key role to play in achieving the Government's recycling target, because they have responsibility for collecting and disposing of household waste. That is why the Government placed a requirement on waste collection authorities to draw up recycling plans, under section 49 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Government also accept that local authorities need financial assistance in working towards the target.
This year, we allocated £15 million for supplementary credit approvals to support 307 recycling schemes being planned by 161 authorities. Supplementary credit approvals allow local authorities to borrow for specific types of capital investment, beyond the limit set by their basic credit level. The £15 million is in addition to the £25 million we allocated in 1991–92 and 1992–93. This year's allocations cover a wide range of proposals from home composting projects to mini recycling centres.
Local authorities are now more involved in recycling than ever before. This £15 million continues our programme of support which is very important in helping authorities to implement their recycling strategies.
Now that the majority of waste collection authorities have prepared their recycling plans, many are keen to start implementing them. Many waste disposal authorities are also eager to do more. So it is no surprise that the demand for supplementary credit approvals for recycling is higher than ever. Under the environmental partnership scheme, the aim is to maximise investment in recycling by combining SCAs with authorities' own capital receipts and private sector contributions.
My hon. Friend expressed some disappointment that there is no duty for local authorities to pay recycling credits to recycling industries. We have some sympathy with that point of view. When we introduced the recycling credits legislation, we hoped to place such a duty on authorities, but we discovered that there were practical difficulties about doing so. For instance, a local authority might, quite reasonably, not wish to pay credits on a recycling collection scheme that was directly competing for material with another scheme already established in the area. So we accepted that there should be a power rather than a duty.
However, we took a power in the Environmental Protection Act to change that power into a duty. If we could be satisfied that the practical problems could be overcome, we would be prepared to use that power. However, this may be academic in a few years' time because of our review of local government organisation. Where there are unitary local authorities, recycling credits are considerably less significant. Recycling credits are designed to put local authorities in a position to assess the costs of disposing of waste and the costs of recycling it and choose the less expensive option. Unitary authorities are already in that position. I can assure my hon. Friend that, as disposal costs rise, recycling credits will also rise. That is because the recycling credit is set at a level equivalent to the avoided disposal costs due to the recycling.
I have a lot of sympathy with the industry's concern that it should not be hampered by excessive regulation. The Government are no friends of regulation for the sake of it. Any new regulation on the environment has to justify itself to Ministers, and we are also launching a deregulatory review of existing controls, including those on waste. We are more than happy to consider cases that do not need to be toughly regulated.
My hon. Friend has led delegations to Ministers, and officials have held quite long and careful discussions about the regulation of the metal recovery industries with the British Secondary Metals Association and the British Scrap Federation. I hope that he will concede that the Government have been patient listeners to the scrap industry, even if we do not always give the industry everything for which it asks.
The scrap metal industry has, I know, two quite distinct complaints: first, that a recyclable material should not be defined in law as "waste" and, secondly, that the handling of such materials should not be subject to the same legal controls as wastes.
The first question is not the important one. We can all argue about the proper meaning of words. What matters is the effect of our interpretation on how the law is applied. The real issue is how the activities of the industry should be regulated. I believe that there is a need to regulate the movement and treatment of scrap. In the interests of the industry itself, we want to ensure that scrap that is capable of being recycled and which is claimed to be going to recycling, really does go for recycling, that it goes to


properly run recycling enterprises and that the operations are conducted in a sound environmental manner. Whether we call it waste or not, scrap includes some substances that can cause nasty problems if they are dumped or wrongly dealt with. It is in the interests of the scrap industry to ensure that they are not. The simple mention of the word "recycling" cannot automatically justify the removal of all controls. That is why many scrap operations are subject to waste licensing, why scrap has to be carried by registered waste carriers and why scrap will be subject to the duty of care.
My hon. Friend mentioned the industry's specific concerns about the new waste management licensing system under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As he will be aware, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside announced yesterday a further delay in the introduction of waste management licensing. We very much regret the delay, which is caused by the complex interaction between domestic and EC legislation on waste, something we are determined to sort out properly before introducing the new system, but which is taking longer than we expected to resolve.
As it happens, that postponement is not the result of representations by the scrap or any other industry. Nevertheless, it gives the scrap metal industry a further breathing space in which to prepare for the new licensing system.
We are well aware of the issues that were mentioned by my hon. Friend, who highlighted three in particular: the new system of charging for licences, the position of unlicensed operators, and the effect on save-a-can schemes.
The new system of charges is part of the Government's polluter-pays principle. If we are to have any environmental laws, someone must run them, and someone must meet the administrative costs of running them. In the Government's view, it is the operator who should meet those costs, not the taxpayer. That is all the charging scheme is—a cost-recovery charge for a local authority's costs in issuing licences, inspecting sites and so on. Those charges will be set by the Secretary of State at what we judge to be a fair level and approved by the Treasury as being no more and no less than based on recovery cost.
I doubt whether many scrap operators do not now know that they need a waste licence—it has been a legal requirement for a number of years. They really should have applied for a licence by now, even if their local authority has not yet reached a decision on their application. We have held back the application of the duty of care to scrap metal for more than a year to give people time to apply for a licence. The whole point of the duty of care is to make it illegal to consign waste to an unauthorised person. It would be unfair on those respectable operators who have applied for licences to wait any longer.
I shall write to my hon. Friend about can banks.
Everyone has a part to play in meeting the Government's target of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by the year 2000. The Government are undertaking a wide programme of measures to promote recycling, where it would appear to be a realistic option, and I am sure that all interested parties will continue to respond to the challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.